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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the context that data is 'current' and specifically from Hyperliquid, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details like response format, pagination behavior, or data freshness limitations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately communicates the verb, resource, and context, making it concise and well-structured.

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 simple read-only filtered-list tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It clearly states what data is returned (positions) and the filtering criterion (specific token). However, it does not mention what fields a position contains or how pagination works, which would be beneficial given no output schema.

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 provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters, including defaults and examples. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly states the resource ('current Hyperliquid perpetual positions') and scope ('held by smart money for a specific token'). This distinguishes it from sibling Nansen tools such as nansen_smart_money_holdings or nansen_smart_money_trades, which focus on other data types.

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 scenarios (e.g., when you need current perp positions for a token), but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. Sibling tools exist that could be confused, but no direct comparison is provided.

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