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 cover the read-only/open-world safety profile, and the description adds real value beyond them: the data provenance ('ByKaranteli's own hourly liquidation record', hourly open interest record) and the coverage caveat that only counted venues are included, each with its own record start date. It omits return shape/pagination, but no output schema exists to conflict with.

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 with the activation condition front-loaded and the data scope following. The second sentence is somewhat run-on and dense, but every clause carries information about scope or source.

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-parameter, read-only aggregate with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the source records, the window options and the venue-coverage limit. It stops short of describing the response shape, which an agent assembling an answer would benefit from knowing.

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% for the single 'days' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the values ('one, seven or thirty days') but adds no syntax or default information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 metric: each counted exchange's share of liquidations and of perpetual open interest, computed over 1/7/30-day windows. It is distinguishable from ranking tools like get_liquidation_leaderboard by its emphasis on proportional share, though it never names a sibling to sharpen the contrast.

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 trigger conditions: 'when the user asks which exchange sees the most liquidations, how that share moved this week or this month, or how perpetual open interest splits between venues.' Strong context-setting, but no when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative tools.

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