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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: a $0.02 x402 payment in USDC on Base or Solana, that failures (bad input, no live market) are free, and the exact shape of the returned signal set. It omits auth/settlement mechanics and any rate or coverage limits, 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?

Front-loaded with the price and payment rail, then the core question, then the return payload, then error policy and a 'data, not advice' disclaimer. Dense but each clause carries information; only the disclaimer is arguably disposable.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return values, and it does list the per-outcome fields and the free-error behavior. Missing are coverage limits (how many assets/outcomes) and pagination or result-size expectations, but for a single-asset snapshot tool this is close to sufficient.

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 100% (asset with default BTC, optional outcome id, min_depth_usd with its 5 pp semantics), so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 concrete question it answers (is a Hyperliquid prediction market on a crypto/stock price cheap or expensive) and enumerates the returned per-outcome fields (bid, ask, depth, implied probability, edge in pp, liquidity flag/signal). The verb+resource is specific, but it never distinguishes itself from the similar-sounding sibling get_pm_scan, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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: it tells you the tool answers a cheap/expensive question for 'every live binary price outcome on one asset' and that bad input or no live market is a free error, which hints at when it is worth calling. There is no explicit when-to-use versus get_pm_scan or list_pm_markets, and no stated prerequisites beyond payment.

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