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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden; 'Get' implies a safe read, but it never says what happens with an unknown symbol, whether the call is rate-limited, or how 'optional candle history' is triggered. It does add useful return-content context (mark/funding, candles), but leaves the candle-retrieval mechanism ambiguous.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb, resource, keying parameter, and returned data all appear before any qualifier.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete, but the statement that candle history is 'optional' conflicts with the absence of any flag parameter beyond interval, leaving the agent unsure whether candles are always returned or gated by the default 1h interval.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only adds the notion that candle history is optional and implicitly tied to the interval parameter, which is marginal additional meaning beyond 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 a specific verb and resource ('Get a Hyperliquid perp market by symbol') and names the returned content (mark/funding context, candle history). The 'by symbol' phrasing implicitly contrasts it with the sibling list_hyperliquid_markets, though it never names that alternative.

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 only implied: call this when you already have a single symbol and want its market data rather than a listing. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative against list_hyperliquid_markets, screen_hyperliquid_markets, or rank_hyperliquid_markets.

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