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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only snapshot by describing positions and balances, but never states read-only-ness outright, nor anything about rate limits, authentication, caching, or whether the address may be any EVM address or only a Hyperliquid-native account. The output-schema presence covers return shape, which lifts it above a 2.

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 resource, and the parenthetical field list is dense but each item earns its place as concrete output detail. No filler or hedging; only the fragment-style phrasing keeps it from a 5.

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-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers what is returned and a plausible use case, so an agent has enough to invoke it. The remaining gap is address-format guidance and read-only confirmation, which is a modest omission rather than a blocking one.

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?

There is exactly one required parameter and schema description coverage is 0% — the schema gives only 'Address' with no type detail beyond string. The description says 'a Hyperliquid wallet's' but never specifies the expected format (0x-prefixed hex, case-sensitivity, or whether a sub-account is valid), so it fails to compensate for the total schema gap.

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 names a specific resource — a Hyperliquid wallet's open perp positions — and enumerates the exact fields returned (side, size, entry, value, unrealized PnL, leverage, liquidation price, funding) plus margin summary and spot balances. That cleanly separates it from siblings like perp_funding_rates or whale_transfers, though it never explicitly names an alternative tool.

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?

'Use to track whales or your own account' gives a real usage cue, which is more than nothing. But it offers no when-not conditions, no prerequisites, and no pointer to a sibling when the user wants cross-venue funding, transfers, or aggregate pricing instead.

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