Largest single liquidations and a 30-day session heatmap (counted venue feeds)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds materially useful context: the data comes from 'counted venues' public feeds', SELL means a long was liquidated, and Binance's one-print-per-second-per-symbol cap makes its rows a floor. Those caveats go beyond structured fields and prevent misreading the ranking as exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the trigger conditions before the return description, and no filler. The second sentence is long and run-on, packing rank/symbol/venue/side/price/quantity/notional/time into a parenthetical, but every element is informative.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain the return payload — it does so field by field and includes the heatmap dimensions and a data-quality caveat. What remains unstated is pagination/truncation behavior on limit and whether venue coverage varies by window, which are secondary for a read-only leaderboard.

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 100% and each parameter already documents its meaning, default, and bounds, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reaffirms the 24h/7d/30d window and the days-to-heatmap relationship but adds no syntax or edge-case detail beyond what is structured.

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 resource and scope: the largest single liquidation prints plus a 30-day weekday-by-UTC-hour session heatmap, with explicit window options. It distinguishes itself from a generic liquidations feed by emphasizing 'largest single prints' and the clustering heatmap, though it never names which sibling to use instead.

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?

Opens with concrete triggering questions ('biggest liquidation today or this week', 'who got liquidated for the most', 'when in the day or week liquidations cluster'), giving clear context for selection. It stops short of exclusions, e.g. it does not say when to prefer get_liquidations, get_liquidation_cascades, or get_liqmap.

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