LiqMap: estimated liquidation clusters with real prints overlaid

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the public tier is restricted to the 24h view, other intervals are member-only, and the data comes from six venues.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first gives the usage trigger, the second describes the return contents, and the third notes the public-tier limitation. It is front-loaded and free of filler.

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 single-optional-parameter read-only tool with rich schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool returns, the scope limitation, and the data source. There is no missing information an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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?

There is only one parameter, and the schema already fully describes it, including allowed pattern, example 'BTCUSDT', acceptance of bare BTC, and default value. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific trigger ('where liquidation clusters or liquidity pools sit'), specifies the resource (LiqMap snapshot for one symbol), and details what it contains: modeled liquidation levels, zone aggregates, and real prints from six venues. The title adds 'estimated liquidation clusters with real prints overlaid,' which helps distinguish it from related liquidation tools.

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 opening sentence gives explicit conditions for when to call the tool, including user phrasings like 'liquidation heatmap reading.' It does not explicitly name alternative siblings or state when not to use it, but the trigger context is clear enough for routing.

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