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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it defines the ranking statistic (current 1h funding vs the coin's last 7 days), names the mover windows (24h and 1h), and discloses cost/access ('$0.006 USDC (Base or Solana) via x402'). It omits rate limits, caching/refresh cadence, and explicitly stating this is a read-only operation.

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 use case, then inputs, then outputs, then an example and price — a sensible order with no filler sentences. The density is high and the example/price run together slightly awkwardly, but every clause carries information.

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, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned structure (as_of, fundingExtremes ranked by |z|, oiMovers24h, oiMovers1h, funding APR, OI USD). For a two-parameter read tool that is nearly everything an agent needs; only the sibling boundary and response size/pagination are unaddressed.

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 both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including the default 10 and the 1-50 range. The description restates the range and default and clarifies that min_oi_usd filters markets out rather than ranking them, but adds no format or type guidance 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 and resource: which Hyperliquid markets have funding far from their own 7-day norm (ranked by |z|) and where open interest is jumping. The framing 'Use when hunting crowded perps' makes the intent unmistakable. It loses the top mark only because it never names or distinguishes itself from overlapping siblings such as hl_funding_screener, hl_funding_history, and hl_perp_metrics.

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?

Opens with an explicit use condition ('Use when hunting crowded perps'), which is clear context for invocation. It does not state when NOT to use it or point to the alternative funding tools, so an agent must infer the boundary with hl_funding_screener itself.

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