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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only and no-auth behavior, and provides detailed transparency about the metaAndAssetCctxs response being two parallel arrays correlated by position, warning against direct scanning and recommending rankBy. This is substantial behavioral disclosure beyond the schema.

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 dense paragraph but front-loaded with the core purpose. The long section on metaAndAssetCctxs is necessary and well-structured, explaining the gotcha and solution. No wasted words, though it could be split into shorter sentences for readability.

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?

The description covers key aspects: read-only, type selection, and especially the complex metaAndAssetCctxs behavior. It does not specify output formats for other types (e.g., allMids, l2Book), but given the absence of output schema, it could be more complete. Overall, it is adequate for a multi-query tool.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds extra semantics for rankBy (explains funding vs fundingAbs, joining, sorting, and response structure) and for type (names examples). This adds value beyond the schema, though schema alone would be sufficient for basic use.

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 the tool queries the Hyperliquid Info API for perps/spot order-book data, explicitly read-only with no auth. It lists the 'type' field and examples (meta, l2Book, allMids, etc.), distinguishing it from generic fetch/api tools and other siblings.

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 explains what the tool does and when to use it (for Hyperliquid data) but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use it. It does provide strong guidance for metaAndAssetCctxs usage, directing to rankBy for sorted queries, which is a clear usage pattern.

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