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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the data source (Hyperliquid) and an availability caveat ('where available'), but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or refresh behavior, so it adds only moderate value beyond annotations.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: the first defines the resource and its contents, the second states the use case. Every phrase earns its place, with no repetition or filler.

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 a no-param, read-only tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers what the tool returns (perps context, funding, OI) and why to use it. A minor gap is the lack of detail on data freshness or scope (e.g., all perps vs. specific assets), but it is largely 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?

With zero parameters, the schema has no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description appropriately adds no parameter details because none exist.

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 names a specific resource—perpetual futures market context from Hyperliquid—and lists included data (funding, open interest), which distinguishes it from generic market-data siblings. However, it omits an explicit retrieval verb and does not name any sibling tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It states a clear use case ('Use to assess positioning and liquidation risk'), giving the agent a concrete reason to call it. It does not, however, mention when not to use it or which alternative tools (e.g., get_market_sentiment) might be better for other analyses.

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