get_liquidation_records

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it is paginated and mainnet-only, which are behavioral constraints beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions with annotations.

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 core purpose. Every part is informative: what it does, coverage (both directions), distinction from sibling, pagination, and mainnet constraint. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return type (liquidation history), covers key constraints (paginated, mainnet-only), and distinguishes from a sibling. It is fairly complete for a read-only tool, though it does not detail the exact fields in the output.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that the records include both directions of liquidation, but this is more about the output than parameter semantics. It does not add significant detail about parameter usage 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 clearly states it retrieves V1 JustLend liquidation history for a user, covering both liquidations initiated by the user and liquidations where the user was the target. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool get_moolah_liquidation_records, which covers V2 Moolah liquidations.

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 description provides guidance on when to use this tool by differentiating it from get_moolah_liquidation_records and noting it is mainnet-only. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention other alternatives beyond the sibling.

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