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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about the result carrying provenance and the live nature of the data, which goes beyond the structured annotation fields without contradicting them.

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 extremely concise, using two sentences to enumerate what the tool returns. It is front-loaded with the core value proposition and every phrase adds meaningful content with no wasted words.

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 no-parameter, read-only snapshot tool, the description is complete. It lists the major output categories, mentions provenance, and combined with the annotations gives an agent everything needed to call and interpret the tool correctly. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently covers the return content.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter meanings to clarify. The schema already reflects this, and the description does not need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps.

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 tool's purpose: providing key live Hyperliquid metrics such as BTC/ETH marks, volume, open interest, funding, a sentiment score, and top wallets by PnL. It is specific about the resource and content, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like tape_market_signals or tape_markets_radar.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or situational fit, leaving an agent to infer that this is a general market pulse snapshot.

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