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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does substantial work: it discloses that this wallet is the one live orders execute from, that fees are 0.25% per perps trade collected automatically, and that custody terms apply. It stops short of explicitly declaring the call is read-only with no side effects, and says nothing about authentication or error behavior, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence that identifies the resource first and then lists its facets, so the agent gets the core identity immediately. The embedded fee and custody details are relevant but dense, making it slightly overstuffed for one sentence.

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 compensates by enumerating exactly what the wallet record contains, which is the right call for a zero-parameter read tool. Gaps remain around whether the call requires authorization and what happens if no trading wallet exists yet (versus create_trading_wallet), but the core is covered.

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 is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The enumerated return content is effectively the useful semantic payload here.

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 names a specific resource — the Hyperliquid trading wallet that LIVE orders trade from — and enumerates its contents (address, balances, trading key status, fees, custody terms), which clearly distinguishes it from read-only siblings like get_account or get_copy_wallet. It lacks an explicit verb ("retrieve"/"fetch"), relying on the colon-list to convey what is returned, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 is only implied: the mention of trading key status "and when to renew it" and "how to fund it" hints at pre-trade checks and key-rotation decisions, but the description never states when to call this versus get_account, get_copy_wallet, or authorize_trading_key. An agent must infer the routing.

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