defi_get_liquidations

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It adds that the tool 'Shows liquidatable positions at various price levels,' which gives some idea of output, but does not disclose whether it lists all protocols, what is returned when no protocol filter is used, or any rate/auth considerations. This is minimal and leaves key behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 action, and every word adds value. It is concise and to the point without redundancy.

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 the tool has one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves the output format ambiguous ('various price levels' is vague). It doesn't explain what data is shown per position or what happens without a protocol filter, so it's a minimum viable description but not complete.

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 schema fully describes the only parameter, 'protocol,' with an example. The description adds no parameter information, but since schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves liquidation data for lending protocols, naming a specific resource and scope. It distinguishes itself by mentioning 'liquidatable positions at various price levels,' but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_liquidatable_positions.

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: users who need liquidation data for lending protocols would use this tool. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over similar tools, no exclusions, and no context about prerequisites or alternatives.

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