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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's additional context about leaderboard-derived screening, verification by fills, inclusion of open positions, and plan-specific headline behavior adds genuine value beyond the schema. The final note 'Descriptive market data only' reinforces the read-only nature without contradicting the annotations.

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 information-dense but somewhat run-on, packing multiple distinct ideas into a long first sentence before moving to examples, plan behavior, and alternatives. Every sentence earns its place, yet the structure could be clearer with more separation between purpose, usage, and alternatives.

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 read-only lookup tool with an output schema, the description covers what the data is, how it is verified, example intents, plan-specific constraints, and sibling alternatives. Nothing necessary for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents coin, pair, and limit well. The description adds context for the coin filter in examples and mentions plan-specific behavior, but does not materially expand parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 what the tool returns: a screened list of profitable Hyperliquid accounts with trader numbers, performance figures, and coins traded. It gives concrete example queries and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like hl_wallet, hl_moves, and smart_money.

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?

It explains when to use the tool ('who are the best traders', 'who is Trader 12', 'which proven traders trade SOL') and names specific alternatives for other needs: hl_wallet for a live book, hl_moves for recent actions, and smart_money for collective per-coin books. It also discloses plan-dependent behavior around coin filtering.

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