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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds substantial context: 'facts-only, non-advice', the exact vol-expansion formula (std(close[-20:])/std(close[-100:]), ≥1.3), and the venue ('The same venue we trade on'). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, though it does not discuss response structure or rate limits.

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 single dense run-on sentence with an embedded formula and parenthetical, making it grammatically awkward ('read our own trading research is grounded in'). While every piece of information earns its place, the lack of clear structure (e.g., bullet points) and the awkward phrasing make it harder to parse effectively.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it lists all expected metrics, includes the regime formula, and notes multi-coin + BTC DVOL. It doesn't explicitly state the response format (e.g., JSON keys), but the enumeration of data points gives the agent a strong expectation. Minor ambiguity remains about how the 'coins' parameter shapes the output.

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?

The schema already documents the only parameter 'coins' at 100% coverage ('Coins for the set (default BTC/ETH/SOL/XRP)'). The description reinforces the default set and adds 'BTC DVOL' but provides no additional syntax or format details, so it adds marginal value over the schema, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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 identifies the resource as 'Live Hyperliquid derivatives signals' and enumerates specific metrics (funding rate, basis, open interest, realized vol, volume, vol-expansion regime). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like markets_act or seller_intel, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Usage is implied by the data provided—the agent would call this when needing Hyperliquid derivatives signals. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or comparison with alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The scope is clear from the description but guidance is absent.

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