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

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: data is recorded from ByKaranteli's own stream collectors, reflects a floor rather than estimates, covers only venues on the coverage list, is finalized per UTC day, and starts on 2026-07-30. This helps the agent set expectations about completeness and freshness without contradicting annotations.

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 information-dense but every clause earns its place: trigger conditions, return shape, data provenance, coverage caveat, granularity, and history start are all packed into three sentences. The key usage trigger is front-loaded.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description conveys the return granularity, units, data source, coverage caveat, and start date. An agent has enough context to know what it will get and how to interpret it, especially since the two parameters are already fully documented by the schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that results are per symbol and per exchange and that history is growing daily, but it does not add material parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides for days and symbol.

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 states exactly what the tool does: returns daily long/short liquidation totals in USD per symbol and exchange. The trigger phrase 'Call this when the user asks how much was liquidated' plus the resource scope makes the purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools like cascades, leaderboard, or liqmap.

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?

It explicitly names the use cases: user asks about crypto futures liquidation amounts, longs/shorts getting flushed, or liquidation history. It does not name alternative sibling tools or give when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls just short of a 5.

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