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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context that data is read live from the node and lists the exact returned fields, but it does not mention rate limits, pagination, or authentication behavior. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core resource first and then enumerates returned fields after a colon. There is no filler, though the long field list makes it slightly dense and less scannable than a perfectly structured entry.

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 query tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields (wallet, size, notional, entry, leverage, liquidation price, unrealised PnL, cohort). Annotations cover safety, so an agent has enough to call it correctly, though sibling-routing guidance is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (coin, side, limit) are fully documented in the schema, including defaults, enum values, and the per-side meaning of limit. The description adds no syntax or constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific resource and scope: the largest open positions on Hyperliquid, with longs and shorts, plus a full enumeration of returned fields. It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling tools like leaderboard or open_interest_ranking, but it never explicitly names or differentiates itself from any sibling, 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as open_interest_ranking, cohort_positioning, or leaderboard. The description describes what the tool returns, not when an agent should choose it, and provides no exclusions or prerequisites.

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