COINGLASS_LIQUIDATIONS_PAIR

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool gets liquidation history but omits critical details such as default interval (1d), maximum limit (4500), pagination behavior, rate limits, or that prettyFormat controls output format. The description adds minimal transparency beyond the basic action.

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 that efficiently communicates the core purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff. However, it may be too minimal given the tool's complexity, bordering on under-specification rather than 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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description lacks essential context. It does not clarify output format (raw vs pretty), time range behavior, or how to handle pagination. Agents would have to infer too much from the schema alone.

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 only 43%, meaning many parameters lack descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any parameter-level details, forcing agents to rely solely on parameter names and the sparse schema descriptions. Key parameters like start_time and end_time have no explanation.

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 the tool retrieves liquidation history for a specific futures pair, using a clear verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from its sibling tool COINGLASS_LIQUIDATIONS_COIN, which might have a different scope (e.g., per coin vs per pair).

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 COINGLASS_LIQUIDATIONS_COIN or other CoinGlass tools. The description simply states the function without contextual usage advice.

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