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

Discloses read-only behavior, caching (~1800s), authentication (X-Api-Key or x402), cost ($0.003 per call), rate limit (30/min), and that it does not place orders or mutate accounts. Adds value beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 verbose with redundancy (e.g., purpose repeated twice). While structured into sections, it could be more concise. Some sentences ear their place, but not all are efficient.

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 low complexity (1 optional param, annotations, output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: return values (positions, alerts), cost, rate limit, caching, authentication, and usage guidelines. No gaps.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds context for the __x_payment parameter: it is for retrying after HTTP 402 when MCP client cannot set custom headers, and that it is not a business parameter. Enhances understanding beyond schema.

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 it provides whale positions and activity alerts from Hyperliquid DEX. The verb 'call' is generic, but the resource is specific. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by domain, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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?

Explicit guidelines: use for research/signal context, pair with cc.agent_strategy (paper) before live orders, and do not invent fills from this data alone. Provides when-to-use and when-not-to-use with alternatives.

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