Crypto liquidations: daily long/short totals per symbol and exchange

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the data source (ByKaranteli's own Binance, Bybit, and OKX stream collectors), that values are a floor (not estimates), the row granularity (one row per finalized UTC day, symbol, exchange), and the history start date (2026-07-30). This is rich behavioral context that annotations do not provide.

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 three sentences: the first gives usage trigger and output; the second explains data source and caveats; the third defines row granularity and history. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence adds value.

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 simple read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description explains the output shape (daily long/short totals per symbol/exchange), data source, caveat (floor), and history start. No critical context is missing.

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% for both parameters (days and symbol) with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool returns daily long and short liquidation totals in USD per symbol and exchange, specifically for crypto futures. It uses a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('liquidation totals'), and is easily distinguished from sibling tools like get_market_indices or get_funding_heatmap.

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 opens with explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this when the user asks how much was liquidated... or for liquidation history.' It does not explicitly mention when-not-to-use or name alternative tools, but given the distinct sibling tools, the context is clear.

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