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

Annotations already indicate this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: the 36-hour recency window, the $100k threshold, the default/max limit values, and provenance of results.

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?

Three focused sentences deliver the core data scope, time window, filters, and a key output characteristic. Every sentence adds information, with the most important definition front-loaded.

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 read-only data tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context: what data is returned, time window, threshold, filters, and result provenance. It could be slightly more explicit about the response shape, but this is not a major gap.

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 schema covers coins and minNotional, but not the limit default or its semantic meaning. The description adds the default limit of 20, the max of 200, and clarifies that minNotional filters the feed floor at 100000. This compensates for the schema's partial coverage.

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?

Description clearly defines the tool's output: recent fills of $100k or more from top Hyperliquid wallets over the last 36 hours, including net buy/sell flow and top markets. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools that cover broader analytics, liquidations, or live alerts.

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 implicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: when whale-sized recent fills, net flow, or market concentration from top wallets are relevant. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope and filter options are clear.

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