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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: results are aggregated with no individual account rows (a privacy boundary the agent can rely on), and the response carries snapshot age so staleness can be judged. It does not state refresh cadence or whether the census covers all venues or only a subset.

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 front-loaded sentence that enumerates the three returned components before adding the negative scope clause. No filler or repetition, though the sentence is dense enough that the privacy constraint is easy to skim past.

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 rightly enumerates the returned components (price bands, venue coverage, snapshot age). For a one-parameter, read-only tool this is nearly sufficient; the missing piece is the meaning and accepted format of the required symbol argument, which is the one thing an agent must get right to call it.

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 0%, so the single required parameter 'symbol' is documented nowhere in the structured data or the description. The description never mentions the symbol argument at all, leaving an agent to guess whether it accepts a Hyperliquid ticker, a normalized pair, or a value from list_symbols. With one undocumented required parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb ("Returns") with a concrete payload: aggregate liquidation price bands, venue coverage, and snapshot age from the Hyperliquid position census. The qualifier "with no individual account rows" scopes it to aggregate data, which separates it from any account-level or per-position tool. It stops short of naming how it differs from the closely related get_liquidation_magnets and get_magnet_levels_teaser siblings.

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: an agent can infer this is the tool for a market-wide liquidation landscape rather than account-level detail. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on when to prefer it over get_liquidation_magnets or hk_levels, and no prerequisite such as resolving the symbol via list_symbols first.

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