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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral rules: coins with fewer than three whales are reported NEUTRAL regardless of the split, and unread whale accounts are reported rather than treated as flat. These edge-case semantics materially change how results must be interpreted.

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 dense sentences cover the main result, the cost side, and the two most important data-quality edge cases with no filler. The opening sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the supporting clauses each earn their place.

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?

The description conveys the key semantics needed to call and interpret the tool: output type, the consensus rule, and handling of unread accounts. It stops short of specifying the exact output fields or units for funding rates, but with only one optional parameter and no output schema the practical guidance is nearly complete.

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 single parameter, limit, is fully documented in the schema (default 10, range 1-25), so the description need not repeat it. The description adds no param-specific meaning, matching the baseline for high schema 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?

The description identifies a specific resource — consensus positioning of the largest Hyperliquid perp traders — plus funding rates, and explains the meaning in plain terms ('what big leveraged money is actually long or short'). This clearly differentiates it from whale tools for other venues like get_polymarket_whales and from generic track_whales.

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 provides clear context about what the tool returns, so an agent can infer it should be used when Hyperliquid whale positioning or funding rates are needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but it gives enough scope to avoid obvious misfires.

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