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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that OI change fields are null until archive depth exists (started 2026-10-31), that no API key is needed, and defines derived fields (turnover = volume/OI, gap_bps vs Lighter/Ostium/gTrade) so values are interpretable rather than opaque. These are exactly the operational caveats an agent needs before calling.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and every clause carries information, but the middle section is a dense comma-separated metric inventory that reads as a wall of field names. A little more structural separation would improve scannability without losing content.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description enumerates the per-dex, per-market and `leaders` return content thoroughly enough that an agent knows what it will receive. Combined with the null-handling caveat and filter/sort semantics, nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and does: `dex` is explained with concrete builder examples (xyz, io, para), `sort` is enumerated with all six accepted values (oi | volume | funding | liq | gap | oi_change), and `limit` is scoped to 'caps the markets list'. Nothing about the three parameters is left ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb/resource combination: the HIP-3 board of builder-deployed perp markets, with explicit examples (xyz:SP500) and the exact metrics returned. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_oi_board, get_stocks or get_hl_builder_markets because it names HIP-3, per-dex and cross-venue gap_bps as its scope.

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?

Frames the use case as 'what the live list alone cannot tell you' and enumerates the `leaders` output for discovery queries, which implies when to reach for this over a plain market list. It does not, however, explicitly name an alternative sibling (e.g. get_hl_builder_markets) or state exclusions, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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