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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: the $10k order threshold, the 30-minute measurement horizon, the minimum-5-scored-orders filter that silently drops wallets, and the fact that the response restates the formulas. The one notable omission is how the returned wallets are ranked or ordered, which matters for interpreting a capped list.

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?

The core definition is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the per-wallet metric list, the eligibility rule, and the usage routing. The first sentence is long and clause-heavy, but nearly every clause (threshold, directionality, 30-minute horizon, window) carries decision-relevant information, so there is little waste.

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?

For a screening tool with a rich output schema, the description covers what is measured, the thresholds applied, the qualifying condition, the stated caveat about predictive validity, and where to go next. Since an output schema exists, the absence of exhaustive return-format documentation is not a gap.

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 all three parameters (limit, market, window) are already documented, and the description mostly restates them ('over the last 7 or 30 days'). It adds a little meaning by tying the window to the scoring period and stressing 'one Hyperliquid market' as the unit of analysis, but says nothing about the limit parameter or the interaction between window length and the 5-order minimum. 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?

The description names a specific verb-like objective (surface wallets whose >=$10k orders preceded favorable moves on one Hyperliquid market) and enumerates the exact per-wallet outputs: scored order count, total notional, lead score in basis points, hit rate, last order time, and cancelled-share. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools such as get_market_top_wallets or get_trader_profile, which do not score order timing.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use it to find wallets worth watching on one market, then check them with get_trader_profile or get_user_state,' naming the follow-up alternatives and the selection condition (single-market screening). It also states the eligibility floor of 5 scored orders and the caveat that past activity does not predict future results, so an agent knows both the entry point and the limits of the output.

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