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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains the filtering process (excludes market-makers + dust), the aggregation into per-coin consensus metrics, and explicitly labels the output as a positioning signal rather than a trade. This provides a clear and honest account of the tool's 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 description is compact and information-dense, with every sentence contributing to understanding. It front-loads the core purpose, then details methodology, parameters, and usage guidance without any filler or repetition.

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?

As there is no output schema, the description compensates by describing the output components (long/short counts, net notional, bias, conviction, top-trader drill-down). It also covers the parameter and the tool's strategic context, making it complete for a read-only analysis tool.

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 100% for both parameters, so the schema already explains `market` and `top_traders`. The description adds minor context for `market` by stating 'Optionally focus one coin via `market`', but does not significantly enrich parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: showing where Hyperliquid smart money is positioned. It specifies the methodology (filtering leaderboard to consistent directional traders, excluding market-makers and dust) and the output (per-coin consensus and top-trader drill-down), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like consensus_signal or smart_money_flow.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool: as confluence/risk context, not as a standalone entry. It also explains the optional `market` parameter usage. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use it, just states what it's not for.

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