Plan a liquidation ladder

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond them: it uses the market's live margin tiers and mark, and optionally previews costs when feeRate and accountCost are supplied.

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 compact and front-loaded: it defines the core behavior first, then explains placement, sizing alternatives, and optional cost preview. The sentences are dense but each contributes relevant information.

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 complex 13-parameter planning tool with no output schema, the description explains inputs and live-data behavior but does not say what the result contains, such as returned slice sizes, liquidation prices, or cost preview structure. That leaves a meaningful gap for correct invocation interpretation.

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 high at 92%, so the baseline would be 3. The description still adds meaningful semantics by explaining placement modes, alertThreshold-based slice sizing, and the optional cost-preview condition.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: splitting a Hyperliquid perp position into isolated slices whose liquidation prices form a band. It clearly distinguishes the tool's function from data-querying siblings like hl_markets or liq_price, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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 explains parameter-level choices, such as placement 'around' vs 'beyond' and using slices vs alertThreshold, which implies how to use the tool. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like liquidation_map or plan_loans.

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