liquidations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and handles it well: it flags the data as 'estimates, not exact exchange data,' discloses the ~5-minute cache, states the derivation from 'market price action and open interest data,' and notes Binance Futures/Bybit geo-restrictions. No annotation contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the core action, but it repeats itself: 'Get leveraged-position liquidation estimates' is followed by 'Estimated leveraged-position liquidations by token' and '5-min cache' appears twice. The caveats and use case are valuable, but the redundancy keeps it from being tight.

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 zero-param, no-output-schema data snapshot, the description explains the returned value (long/short USD liquidation amounts per token), the data source, cache behavior, and limitations. The main gap is the vague 'recently' lookback window, which the agent cannot parameterize.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already exhaustively describes the inputs; the baseline for such a tool is 4. The description adds value by clarifying the output units (USD per token) that parameters would otherwise need to be distinguished against.

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?

Opening clause 'Get leveraged-position liquidation estimates — long and short liquidation amounts in USD per token' names a specific verb, data subject, and unit of output, making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes this liquidation-specific snapshot from related siblings like leverage_history or funding_rates, which address different data.

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?

Provides an explicit use case: 'Useful for identifying tokens with high leverage risk and likely volatility triggers.' It does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it earns the 'clear context, no exclusions' level rather than the stronger exclusion-aware level.

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