Venue share: each counted exchange's share of the recorded liquidations and of perpetual open interest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond them: data comes from ByKaranteli's hourly liquidation and open interest records, covers counted venues only, and notes each venue's record start day.

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, front-loaded with the usage trigger and followed by the relevant data scope. It is dense but every part contributes to selecting or understanding the tool.

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 one-parameter read-only query tool, the description covers purpose, usage context, data source, and coverage caveats. It does not describe the exact return shape, but it does enough to call the tool appropriately without an output 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?

The single days parameter has full schema description coverage, so the schema already explains the 1, 7, or 30 day window and default. The description reinforces the allowed windows but adds little beyond the schema.

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 a specific resource and scope: venue shares of recorded liquidations and perpetual open interest across exchanges. It clearly distinguishes this from raw liquidation or open-interest tools by focusing on share and venue comparison.

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 gives explicit user-question contexts for when to call it, such as asking which exchange sees the most liquidations or how OI splits between venues. It does not name sibling alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a full when/when-not routing guide.

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