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

The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds real context beyond them: the numbers are recomputed from fills rather than stored, and a 90d window on a very active wallet can take several seconds, which warns the agent about latency. It stops short of stating whether results are cached or how heavy the per-market aggregation is, so it is not fully transparent.

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?

A single dense paragraph is front-loaded with capability, then routing, then a latency caveat, and every clause is load-bearing. The long enumeration of returned metrics is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, which keeps it from a 5.

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 two-parameter read-only analytics tool with a full output schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives, data provenance, and the one operational pitfall (slow 90d queries). An agent has everything needed to choose and invoke it correctly.

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 the enum values, the default 30d, and the 0x address format are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the window governs the lookback over which all metrics are computed, but adds no new syntax or constraint details. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 resource (one Hyperliquid trader) and a specific computed artifact (win rate, profit factor, realized PnL, max drawdown, per-market breakdown, liquidations, trade lifecycle) over named windows. It also states the provenance ('rebuilt from its fills'), so an agent knows this is derived analytics rather than raw records, and it is clearly separable from raw-fill siblings like get_fills.

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 a concrete decision rule ('Use it to vet a wallet before following it') plus three explicit exclusions with the condition that selects each alternative: get_user_summary for plain totals over any range, get_user_state for live positions, get_wallet_behavior for style labels. Nothing is left to inference.

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