Recent liquidations

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, open-world retrieval tool. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: results are newest first, totals are grouped by side, and the default window is the last 24 hours.

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 three short sentences, front-loads the core behavior, and uses the remaining space only for interpretive context and the default window. Nothing is redundant or 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 invocation, the description is mostly complete because the optional parameters and default window are clear. With no output schema, however, it gives only a high-level sense of the return value and does not explain response fields or time-format expectations for since/until.

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 75%, with coin and limit well described and since partly described. The description reinforces the market-vs-whole-exchange behavior and the 24h default, but it does not clarify the until parameter or accepted time formats beyond what the schema already says.

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 (force-closed/liquidated positions), scope (one market or the whole exchange), ordering (newest first), and aggregation (totals by side). This is precise enough for an agent to distinguish it from wallet-trade and market-history siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied: the tool is for recent liquidations, optionally narrowed to a coin, with a default 24h window. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives such as how this differs from market snapshot or raw request workflows.

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