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

With readOnlyHint=true already conveying the non-mutating nature, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it auto-discovers accounts from the venue leaderboard, returns a detailed set of per-position fields, and supports following specific wallets. It could go further by noting edge cases like invalid addresses or data freshness, but it is transparent about the main behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by default behavior, optional parameter behavior, and a pointer to the relevant sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

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 single-optional-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the default discovery mode, the optional address mode, the returned fields, and the natural alternative for cohort-level signals. Nothing essential is missing for correct selection and invocation.

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 covers the single parameter thoroughly with a 100% description coverage rate, including the comma-separated format, max 10 wallets, and omit-to-auto-discover behavior. The description adds only minor nuance like 'follow specific wallets instead,' so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: returning live whale positions on Hyperliquid perps, including specific fields like equity, side, notional, entry price, liquidation price, leverage, and unrealized PnL. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from flow_whale_context, which handles aggregate cohort signals.

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 states the default behavior (auto-discover largest active whales), explains when to pass the 'addresses' parameter instead, and explicitly directs users to flow_whale_context for aggregate cohort signals. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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