get_positions_under_liquidation

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

No annotations are present, and the description only notes that it is public. It does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, data freshness, or whether results are sorted. The pagination parameters in the schema are not explained in the description.

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 very concise at one sentence, which is efficient, but it lacks necessary elaboration on usage and behavior. Given the minimal information, it could be expanded without sacrificing conciseness.

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 parameters, no output schema, and numerous siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what constitutes 'positions under liquidation', how it differs from similar tools, or what the response structure looks like.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a basic description (e.g., 'Page number', 'Optional symbol filter'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Get positions under liquidation (public)' which clearly indicates the verb and resource, but it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_liquidated_positions', which may have overlapping meaning.

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 like 'get_positions' or 'get_liquidated_positions', nor any context on prerequisites or filtering behavior.

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