getLiquidityMiningLiquidationRecords

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions a rate limit (10 req/s) and cursor-based pagination, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, describe any side effects, or indicate required permissions. The word 'Query' implies a read operation, but more detail would be beneficial.

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 with a rate limit note, front-loaded with the core functionality. No unnecessary words or repetitions.

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 complexity of 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameter meanings, return format, or provide usage examples, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 6 parameters (baseCoin, quoteCoin, startTime, endTime, limit, cursor). It only mentions cursor-based pagination in passing, leaving the agent without context for what each parameter does.

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 queries liquidation records for Liquidity Mining positions with cursor-based pagination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like getLiquidityMiningOrders and getLiquidityMiningPositions by specifying 'liquidation records'.

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 liquidation records but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. The context is clear from the name and description, but no specific when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.

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