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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuine behavioral context by explaining what each chain type returns and how auto mode falls back from Hyperliquid to on-chain. It does not contradict annotations and covers the main behavioral variation an agent must know.

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?

Two sentences carry substantial meaning: scope ('One address'), per-chain output differences, and the chain parameter's behavior and values. It is front-loaded and free of filler, though the fragment 'One address.' is slightly cryptic and could be more explicit.

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 a rich output schema and detailed parameter descriptions, the description covers the key invocation decision: which chain to use and what to expect. Pagination, limits, and address format are already handled by the schema and output schema, so nothing critical 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the chain parameter's auto behavior ('tries Hyperliquid, then on-chain') and by mapping chain values to the kinds of data returned. It does not over-explain fields already well described in the 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 states that a single address yields account or wallet data, and clearly differentiates Hyperliquid accounts (positions, leverage, liquidation prices, fills) from EVM wallets (DEX swaps, net flow). The verb 'returns' and resource are present, though the opening 'One address' is terse and relies on the title for full framing.

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 implies usage: pass one address, optionally choose a chain, and get account/wallet data. It explains the chain auto-resolution order, which is useful, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over alternatives like whale_activity, traders, or watch, and gives no exclusions.

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