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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the unusual commercial behavior: 0.02 USDC per call via x402 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header, or free with an API key, plus the note that x402-capable clients auto-pay. It omits data freshness, result caps, and pagination behavior for a 100-per-page dataset.

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-loads what the tool returns, then when to use it, then the access model — a sensible order. The bracketed payment paragraph is longer than the rest but each clause carries distinct information (price, header, alternative auth, auto-pay behavior).

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?

No output schema exists, and the description gives no sense of what a trade record contains (fields, wallet identity, leverage, timestamps), nor what the nested passthrough filter/order objects accept. For a tool whose main parameter is an undocumented passthrough, this leaves an agent guessing at invocation details.

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%, so pagination parameters are already documented. The description adds nothing about the opaque `filters` and `order_by` passthrough objects, which are the parameters most in need of explanation; baseline 3 applies.

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 — perpetual futures trades from smart-money wallets on Hyperliquid — and adds the interpretive gloss that these are leveraged directional bets by sophisticated traders. It is clearly separable from siblings like get_smart_money_dex_trades, get_token_dex_trades, and get_smart_money_holdings.

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?

Gives explicit activation conditions: smart-money perp positions, high-conviction leveraged activity, Hyperliquid-specific questions. It does not name which sibling to use when the user wants spot/dex trades instead, so routing away from alternatives is left implicit.

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