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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses important behavioral context: decisions come from live engines, execution is paper-only, PnL is paper with modeled fees, and the output is not investment advice. That materially helps an agent interpret and trust the result.

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 front-loaded with the main usage instruction and return meaning, then adds the paper-execution caveat and argument list. It is appropriately sized and every sentence adds useful information.

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?

Given an existing output schema and informative annotations, the description is largely complete: it explains when to call, what verdicts look like, and the paper-execution caveat. The main remaining gap is lack of explicit sibling differentiation or alternatives.

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 0%, and the only parameter is asset. The description compensates well by enumerating supported values: btc, eth, hype, sol, uni, zec, pine_btc. It does not mention the default behavior or case sensitivity, but the core semantics are supplied.

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 specific resource and output: an actionable execution verdict per asset from live Hyperliquid engines, with ENTER_LONG / ENTER_SHORT / WAIT and entry/exit details. It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from potentially related siblings such as get_signals or get_btc_grid_signal.

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?

It gives a clear usage condition: 'Call it before entering crypto perps.' However, it does not state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools for signal or execution checks.

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