COINGLASS_LIQUIDATIONS_COIN

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

No annotations provided, and the description only says 'Get aggregated liquidation history', implying a read operation. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as data freshness, pagination, rate limits, or the structure of the response. For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, more transparency is needed.

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, making it concise. However, for a tool with 7 parameters, it lacks important structure and critical details. It could be slightly longer to front-load key information about required parameters or aggregation behavior.

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?

Given the high parameter count (7), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the roles of interval, limit, start_time, end_time, or how aggregation works across exchanges. It also does not clarify the difference from the sibling tool COINGLASS_LIQUIDATIONS_PAIR.

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 43% (only 3 of 7 parameters have descriptions: exchange_list, symbol, prettyFormat). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond repeating 'aggregated liquidation history for a coin across exchanges'. It fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions of interval, limit, start_time, end_time, which are essential for correct usage.

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 clearly states 'Get aggregated liquidation history for a coin across exchanges', which specifies the verb (Get), resource (aggregated liquidation history), and scope (for a coin across exchanges). This differentiates it from siblings like COINGLASS_LIQUIDATIONS_PAIR (likely pair-specific) and other non-liquidation tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for coin-level aggregated data, but does not mention exclusions or comparisons with siblings like COINGLASS_LIQUIDATIONS_PAIR. Usage is implied but not clarified.

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