HLWatch Hyperliquid Wallet Tracker

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value by confirming the data is public and free (no auth/key needed) and by enumerating the returned fields in place of a missing output schema. It omits freshness/latency and rate-limit behavior, keeping it short of 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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, followed by the field list and the access note. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 field enumeration is the critical completeness piece and it is present, along with the public/free access note. Minor omissions like data freshness or perp-only scope against spot are not spelled out, but an agent can call it correctly from what is given.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Hyperliquid wallet address 0x... (40 hex)'), so the schema carries the detail. The description only broadens applicability with 'any wallet', adding no further syntax or constraint beyond the schema — the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Live Hyperliquid perp account snapshot for any wallet') and enumerates exactly what the snapshot contains (account value, positions, margin, withdrawable). It is implicitly distinct from get_wallet_trades and start_wallet_alerts, though it never names those siblings to route the agent explicitly.

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: 'Live ... snapshot' suggests real-time position lookup versus historical trades in the sibling tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-naming sentence. 'Public data, free' weakly signals no authentication is required.

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

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=true; the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the 24h default window, the hard 168h cap, the 'Free' cost signal, and the exact shape of returned data including per-coin totals. Missing is any mention of result caps or pagination for large windows.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource and window, then lists return fields in a scannable series, ending with the cost signal. No filler, and the most decision-relevant constraints come first.

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 correctly spends its words describing the return payload, which is the right call. The remaining gap is operational: no indication of how many fills are returned or whether large 168h queries are truncated.

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 67% and the undocumented parameter is precisely the one the description covers: 'hours' gets its default and 168h maximum stated in prose. The address and min_usd parameters are already documented in the schema, so the description complements rather than repeats.

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 verb+resource ('Recent Hyperliquid fills for a wallet') and enumerates the exact payload fields, so it is far from a tautology. It doesn't explicitly contrast with get_wallet_positions or start_wallet_alerts, but the resource noun makes the distinction inferable.

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 useful context (default 24h, max 168h, 'Free'), which implicitly tells the agent this is a cheap read for recent activity. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_wallet_positions or when to start alerts instead.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does disclose key behavior: ~2 minute delivery latency, a 25-wallet cap, a 1-wallet/3-day free trial, and that size filters and >1 wallet require a Pro key sourced externally. It omits lifecycle details such as how to stop alerts, whether repeated calls duplicate subscriptions, and failure behavior.

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 core behavior and latency are front-loaded in one sentence, and the second sentence packs tier limits and key provenance. The pricing/marketing framing ('Free trial... no signup... 5 USDC/month') is partly promotional, but the key and limit information is actionable.

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 5-parameter mutation-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, limits, and auth but says nothing about what the call returns (subscription ID?) or how to cancel an existing alert. An agent can invoke it, but cannot reason about the resulting state.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it establishes that 'addresses' means Hyperliquid wallets capped at 25 (1 on trial), that min_usd-style size filters are Pro-only, and that pro_key is the HW-... key from a specific URL. It still adds nothing about chat_id or how min_usd interacts with the Pro requirement.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Push every new fill of up to 25 Hyperliquid wallets to a Discord webhook or Telegram bot.' That is clearly a push-subscription tool, distinct in kind from the query siblings get_wallet_positions and get_wallet_trades, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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 tool is for real-time fill notifications rather than polling, and the trial/Pro tiers hint at when a paid key is needed. There is no explicit 'use this instead of get_wallet_trades when...' statement or guidance on what to do if a subscription already exists.

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