binance_us_cl_liquidation_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that liquidations occur 'when LTV exceeds liquidationLTV threshold,' explains the data returned (assets, amounts, timestamp, LTV, fees), and includes a warning about institutional requirements. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior, which would be helpful for a read-only historical tool.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose and critical warning. Each sentence adds value: defining liquidation context, listing record fields, and specifying use cases. There is no redundant or verbose content, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering the tool's purpose, prerequisites, and return data structure. It explains what liquidation means and what fields to expect, which compensates for the lack of output schema. However, it could improve by mentioning response format (e.g., JSON array) or error handling, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (startTime, endTime, limit, recvWindow). The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how timestamps relate to liquidation events or typical limit usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 the verb 'Get' and resource 'liquidation history for credit line account,' distinguishing it from siblings like 'binance_us_cl_account' (general account info) or 'binance_us_cl_alert_history' (alerts). It specifies the exact scope of historical liquidation events, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states '⚠️ REQUIRES INSTITUTIONAL CREDIT LINE AGREEMENT,' providing a critical prerequisite. It also lists specific use cases ('Review past liquidation events,' 'Understand liquidation patterns,' 'Audit risk management effectiveness'), guiding when to use this tool versus alternatives like general account or trade history tools.

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