get_liquidatable_positions

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions the health factor criterion. It fails to state whether this is a read-only operation, how results are returned, or any edge cases (e.g., invalid addresses). This minimal description leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's side effects and output behavior.

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 a single, direct sentence that immediately states the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple query tool and contains no redundant or extraneous 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not mention the return format or any behavioral constraints. It relies entirely on the schema for parameters but leaves the agent guessing about the structure of the returned positions or any potential side effects, making it incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (network, protocol, addresses), so the schema carries the full burden of parameter semantics. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation at 100% coverage.

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's function: finding positions eligible for liquidation based on health factor < 1. It uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('positions'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_lending_position (which retrieves a single position) and defi_get_liquidations (which returns liquidation events).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as calculate_health_factor or get_lending_position. The description only states the tool's purpose without any exclusions, prerequisites, or context for alternative selection.

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