liquidations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool shows forced-out liquidation data and signals, but does not mention data freshness, update frequency, or any read-only guarantee. The disclosure is adequate but could be more explicit about behavioral traits like whether data is real-time or historical.

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 concise, with five sentences each adding distinct value: core purpose, signal types, content summary, usage pairing, and comparative advantage. No extraneous information.

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 no parameters, no annotations, and an output schema exists (albeit not shown), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it shows, how to use it with other tools, and its relative strength. No gaps are apparent.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is fully covered. With no parameters, the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as there is nothing further to explain.

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 provides perp liquidation data across OKX for a specific set of assets. It lists what it shows (long vs short volume, biggest events, hottest zones) and distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning pairing with funding_rates() and open_interest() and claiming higher-signal value.

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?

The description explicitly suggests using it alongside funding_rates() and open_interest() for a complete positioning picture, and compares it to OI and funding rates, stating it's higher-signal. This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool relative to alternatives, though it lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios.

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