get_liquidated_positions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description is minimal: 'Get public liquidated positions.' With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it does not mention anything about response format, pagination behavior, side effects, or authentication requirements. This is insufficient for a tool with 5 parameters.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no fluff, front-loaded with the key action and resource. It is appropriately concise but lacks sufficient detail for a tool with 5 parameters.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about expected output and parameter behavior. The current description is too sparse to fully understand the tool's functionality.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are individually described. However, the description adds no extra context beyond the schema, such as parameter relationships or constraints (e.g., start_t vs end_t). Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get public liquidated positions' clearly indicates the action (get) and resource (liquidated positions), and specifies 'public' which hints at scope. However, it does not distinguish from similar sibling tools like 'get_liquidations' or 'get_positions_under_liquidation', leaving some ambiguity about what exactly is returned.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools exist that could overlap, but there is no mention of context, when not to use, or which tool is best for specific scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.