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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses that the tool is advice-only, does not execute trades, takes about a minute, draws from live Hyperliquid candles/funding/OI, and is paid per call at 3.3 USDC on Base via x402. These details are critical for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it, and the non-execution claim is consistent with readOnlyHint=true.

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 paragraph is front-loaded with the tool's core purpose and output list, followed by input names, duration, disclaimers, fee note, identity verification, and endpoint. Most content earns its place, though the token-fee and identity-verification details are somewhat promotional rather than essential to correct invocation.

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 explaining what comes back, and it does so thoroughly: decision state, entry zone, stop, TP1/TP2 with R:R, position size, leverage cap, liquidation estimate, and invalidation. It also covers data sources, duration, non-execution, and payment, making the definition complete for an agent to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all six parameters in detail, including enum meanings and risk-sizing mappings. The description lists the same inputs (marketThesis, capitalUsdc, riskTolerance, optional market, horizon, direction) but adds little beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Turn your market view into a risk-sized perp plan,' and enumerates the outputs (ENTER/WAIT/NO_TRADE, entry zone, stop, TP1/TP2, size, leverage cap, liquidation estimate, invalidation). This clearly distinguishes it from generic trade-idea or market-scan siblings, though it does not explicitly name any 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?

Usage context is implied by the description: it is for converting a market thesis into a risk-sized perp plan, takes about a minute, and is advice-only with no execution. However, it does not state when to choose it over closely related siblings such as hl_quick_trade_idea or position_health_check.

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