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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the read-only snapshot nature, the aggregation behavior, and the exact contents of the returned `performance` block (unrealizedPnlUsd, entryNotionalUsd, openPositionCount, etc.). It omits auth/permission expectations and any explicit statement about cost or rate limits, only implying expense via the 30-60 minute cadence.

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, front-loaded with the tool's identity and contents, then the usage rule. No filler, and the enumerated blocks are the highest-value information for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return shape, and it does so by naming the result blocks and the performance metrics. It is nearly complete for a two-parameter read tool; only the semantics of the fill cap relative to 'recent fills' is left unstated.

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 walletId and fillLimit are already fully documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — notably it never mentions `fillLimit` or how it interacts with the 'recent fills' it advertises.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('one-shot Hyperliquid trading desk snapshot') and enumerates exactly what it aggregates: margin, balances, positions, open orders, recent fills, plus a named `performance` block with its fields. That enumeration lets an agent distinguish it from single-purpose siblings like get_hyperliquid_balances, list_hyperliquid_positions, and get_hyperliquid_user_fills without opening any schema.

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?

'Prefer this over many separate reads every 30-60 minutes' gives an explicit selection rule plus a cadence, which is real when-to-use guidance against the sibling read tools. It stops short of naming those siblings or stating when NOT to use it (e.g., when fill history beyond the cap or a single-purpose filtered read is needed).

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