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

Adds a lot beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: the exact upstream sources (public leaderboard + public info API), the fact that positions are 'live', explicit pricing ($0.004 USDC via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc), and the failure-charging rule ('failed calls are not charged'). The cost and billing semantics are exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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 the core action and data source, then closes with scope limits and cost. Efficient overall, though the 'not investment advice' clause is boilerplate that consumes space without guiding invocation.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers the remaining gaps: data provenance, live vs. cached positioning, scope boundaries, and payment model. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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%, so all four params are already documented with ranges and defaults. The description only echoes the window options ('week, month or all-time') and the minimum account size, adding no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond the schema. 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 chain (finds top-ROI accounts, reads their live positions, sums net exposure per coin) against a named data source (Hyperliquid's public perp leaderboard and info API). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like agent_intel_wallet_pnl_performance_audit or agent_intel_whale_transaction_monitor without opening the schema.

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?

Scope exclusions are explicit — 'Hyperliquid perps only, not spot wallets on other chains' — which tells the agent when not to call it. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead (e.g., the funding-rate or wallet-PnL tools), which keeps it below a 5.

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