USDT liquidity of a currency

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does a good job: it discloses data freshness per tier (yesterday vs today), currency coverage per tier (free vs every currency), and the exact Pro-level fields (pay-in/payout balance, spread, active hours, premium, supply class). It stops short of stating auth mechanics for Pro keys, rate limits, or failure behavior.

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, front-loaded with the metric definition and scale anchor before the tier breakdown. The Pro-tier enumeration is long but each item is substantive information about returned data, so little is wasted.

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 tool with an output schema, the description covers the metric's meaning, the scale reference point, freshness, and tier-gated field availability. That's sufficient to call it correctly; only the auth/permission mechanics of 'Pro keys' remain unstated.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema coverage including format guidance ('ISO 4217 code, for example EGP, NGN, ARS'), so the schema already does the work. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond 'a currency', giving the baseline 3.

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?

It names a specific metric (a 0–100 liquidity index of a currency, with 50 = the market's 90-day norm), which is precise enough to distinguish it from rate-oriented siblings like get_street_rate or get_official_vs_street. What's missing is an explicit pointer to sibling metrics such as get_rail_health or get_stress_signals, which an agent might otherwise confuse with 'liquidity'.

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 tier split ('Free level: yesterday, the free currencies' vs 'Pro keys... today, every currency') tells an agent whether a call will return useful data given the user's access, which implicitly guides usage. However, there's no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no routing to alternative tools.

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