get_liquidation_heatmap

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'where leveraged positions get wiped', omitting whether it's a read operation, auth requirements, rate limits, or output format. This is insufficient for an agent to understand its behavior.

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?

While short, the description is under-specified rather than concise. It omits critical information, making it inefficient for agent use. Every sentence should add value; here, 'Pro tier' is irrelevant.

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 no output schema and simple input, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what data is returned, how the symbol is used, or even what a liquidation heatmap is. An agent cannot form a correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the 'symbol' parameter. Without param descriptions, the agent cannot know what values to supply (e.g., BTC/USD or just BTC).

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 'Where leveraged positions get wiped. Pro tier.' is vague and cryptic. It implies a heatmap of liquidations but lacks a specific verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', and does not clearly distinguish the tool from siblings such as 'get_funding_rates' or 'get_exchange_flows'.

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 'get_funding_rates' or 'get_options_flow'. The agent receives no context for selecting it over other data tools.

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