get_liquidation_levels

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

The description discloses the cost ($0.002 USDC) and the 'estimated' nature of the data, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not mention rate limits, response format, or other potential side effects, and no annotations are provided to cover these.

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, compact sentence that conveys all essential information (what, for which leverage and assets, and cost) without any wasteful words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main aspects: the type of data, the supported assets and leverage levels, and the cost. It lacks explicit return structure but is otherwise complete for the complexity level.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered and no additional parameter explanation is needed. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the output scope rather than parameters.

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 gets estimated liquidation zones, specifying leverage levels (5x/10x/20x) and assets (BTC/ETH/SOL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_crypto_prices or get_funding_rates, which serve different purposes.

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 implies usage: when you need liquidation estimates for BTC/ETH/SOL at certain leverage levels. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over others or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context.

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