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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses important behavioral traits: read-only, CLOB context, non-executable quote, non-consensus price, and the exact evidence fields returned. It omits operational details like rate limits or error behavior, but for a read-only data tool this is largely sufficient.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: the first front-loads what the tool returns, the second clarifies what it is not. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it lists all returned evidence types and draws key boundaries (not consensus price, not executable quote). Minor gaps remain around freshness guarantees or failure modes, but the essential context is present.

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% and the single enum parameter is fully documented with a default to BTC. The description reinforces the supported markets ('reviewed BTC, ETH, or HYPE market') but adds no semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Get) and resource (Hyperliquid mainnet perpetual-market evidence), then enumerates the data fields returned. It explicitly contrasts with oracle-consensus prices and executable quotes, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_consensus_price and execution_preflight.

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?

Clearly scopes usage to 'reviewed BTC, ETH, or HYPE market' and says it is read-only CLOB context, not an oracle-consensus price or executable exchange quote. However, it does not name a specific sibling tool to use instead for alternative needs, leaving some inference to the agent.

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