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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the data is public Hyperliquid data, signals are computed rather than raw, and each result carries its source and triggering numbers. It does not mention freshness/refresh cadence or whether an empty result is possible, which matters for a 'live' feed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause (source of data, signal types, per-signal provenance) earns its place.

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 does useful work by saying each signal comes with its source and triggering numbers. But for a two-parameter, filterable feed it leaves the filtering/pagination behavior and the meaning of 'live' (snapshot vs streaming) unexplained, which an agent needs before calling.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it partially does: the listed categories (spread, momentum, funding, volume) map one-to-one onto the `kind` enum values, giving that filter implicit meaning. The `limit` parameter (1-50) is never mentioned, and it's not stated that `kind` filters results rather than selecting a computation.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Live signals computed from public Hyperliquid data') and enumerates the signal families (spread z-scores, momentum gaps, funding, volume), which tells an agent exactly what comes back. It never names or contrasts against siblings like get_markets, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus get_markets or simulate_strategy, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer that this is a read-only analytics feed from the phrase 'live signals' alone.

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