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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds real context beyond them: a per-call price (0.55 USDC on Base via x402), a POST endpoint, a sub-minute latency expectation, a 3-coin cap, and what the report contains. The identity/token-fee paragraphs are commercial disclosures rather than behavioral traits, but the payment and timing details are genuinely useful and not derivable from structured fields.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the remainder is bloated with promotional and verification material: a 30-day plan upsell, a token fee disclosure with a contract address, two identity URLs, and a payout wallet. These earn their place commercially, not for tool selection, and bury the two genuinely useful facts (price and endpoint).

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does list the report components (funding/OI landscape, funding watchlist, top markets, rate/APR/24h vs 7d trend/OI/volume/mark vs oracle). Payment, delivery format, and latency are all covered. Only the focus parameter's effect on output is left unexplained.

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 the schema already documents both coins (max 3, default BTC/ETH/SOL) and focus (enum). The description adds a concrete example payload and repeats the 3-coin cap, but says nothing about the focus parameter or how it interacts with coins. 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 opening sentence names a concrete verb+resource: a bundled Hyperliquid market scan plus per-coin funding snapshots capped at 3 coins, rendered as a markdown report. It is distinguishable from siblings like hl_funding_snapshot and market_scan_report because it explicitly claims to combine both, though it never names those siblings to make the division of labor explicit.

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 phrase 'one-call daily research bundle' implies the recurring-daily-research use case, and 'Research only: no entries, sizes or return claims' sets scope. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over hl_funding_snapshot (for arbitrary coins) or market_scan_report, nor any exclusion criteria. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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