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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this by using 'audit' and describing read-only data retrieval. It adds value by clarifying that risk_flags come from fixed numeric thresholds (not heuristics), that max_leverage and return_on_equity_pct are Hyperliquid's own reported fields, and that the service is paid in USDC on Base. These details go beyond the annotations and give the agent a fuller picture of the tool's behavior and cost implications.

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 and well-structured, front-loading the core purpose ('Use this tool to audit a Hyperliquid wallet address') before diving into details. Every sentence contributes meaning: it lists output fields, clarifies provenance, states exclusions, mentions the lack of a leaderboard, and notes payment. While it is relatively long, the complexity of the tool justifies the length, and there is 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?

Given that the tool has a single parameter, a clear output schema (as indicated by 'Has output schema: true'), and read-only annotations, the description covers all the essential context an agent needs: what the tool does, what it returns, its limitations, what it does not do, and the cost model. It fully equips an agent to decide when and how to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, and the schema already describes it as 'Hyperliquid/EVM wallet address to audit (0x...).' The description adds minimal additional semantic value beyond the schema, such as confirming the address must be one the user already knows. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 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 states the action ('audit'), the resource ('Hyperliquid wallet address'), and enumerates exactly what is returned (side, size, leverage, etc.). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from discovering or ranking smart money wallets, which differentiates it from potential sibling tools. The phrase 'you already know' clarifies that it only audits a supplied address, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 explicitly states when to use it ('audit a Hyperliquid wallet address you already know') and when not to ('Do not use for spot price data or any exchange other than Hyperliquid'). It also explains that it cannot discover smart money wallets because Hyperliquid's API has no such endpoint, preventing misuse. These explicit exclusions and context make the usage boundaries crystal clear.

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