liquidations

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

Annotations already cover read-only safety, but the description adds non-obvious behavior: real exchange data with no estimates, and the payment/auth model (x402 USDC on Base, free with WICKEDAPI_API_KEY, otherwise HTTP 402 with a decoded price in payment_required that is a quote, not a failure). That last point prevents an agent from misreading a 402 as an error.

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?

Front-loaded with the capability, then example, then when-to-use, then behavior — a sensible order. Slightly long because the paywall sentence is dense, but every element carries 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?

Covers scope, defaults, return fields, the sibling alternative, and the non-standard failure mode. With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields and aggregates rather than relying on undocumented structure.

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 100%, and the schema already documents both params including defaults and the 1-100 limit range. The description only restates 'for a coin' and shows an example URL; it adds no syntax or edge-case meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (recent forced liquidations) with scoping detail (OKX USDT perpetual swaps, per coin) and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what it gets.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('when you want recent forced liquidations on OKX USDT perpetuals for a coin, with side and size') and names a disqualifying alternative — 'Not for liquidity pools (use liquidity_levels).'

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