liquidation_watchlist

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 clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Fetches'), discloses the cost ($0.50 USDC per call), and explains return fields along with the meaning of health factors. It lacks details on authentication or error behavior, but for a simple parameterless fetch, this is adequate transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a concise list of return fields and cost. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of schema 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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it fetches, the source, the key data fields, the interpretation of risk, and the cost. It is not overly verbose but leaves minor gaps such as network specificity and response format, which are acceptable for a simple data fetch.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and the description correctly avoids extraneous parameter explanations. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description adds value by detailing the output fields, which helps the agent interpret the result.

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 explicitly states the function: 'Fetches Aave V3 near-liquidation positions from Valorem's real-time monitor.' It uses a specific verb ('Fetches'), names the resource ('Aave V3 positions'), and adds a source ('Valorem's real-time monitor'). It also details the returned data (wallet addresses, health factors, etc.), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on other data types.

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 implies usage for monitoring liquidation risks by explaining health factors near 1.0 are risky, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., pool_spreads, rpc_health) are provided, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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