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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the default time window (last 24 hours) and the exact aggregation output (fill count, volume, realized PnL, fees, wins/losses, win rate, maker/taker share, current account state). It does not discuss rate limits or data freshness, but that is a minor gap given the annotations.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and output metrics, followed by a usage example and explicit sibling routing. Every clause earns its place by either clarifying scope or directing the agent to the right alternative; there is no redundant or vague wording.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values in detail, yet it still enumerates the key metrics for quick comprehension. With annotations covering safety and schema covering parameters, the description is complete for a read-only wallet summary tool; nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents address format and the accepted formats/defaults for from and to. The description repeats the default window ('last 24 hours') but adds no new syntax or semantic guidance beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Totals for one Hyperliquid wallet over a time range', and enumerates exactly what is included (fill count, volume, PnL, fees, wins, losses, win rate, maker/taker share, account state). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools get_trader_profile and get_user_pnl_series, so an agent can select it 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?

It gives a concrete usage example ('how much did this wallet trade or make this week') and explicitly routes the agent to alternatives for related but different needs: get_trader_profile for scored records with profit factor/drawdown/per-market breakdown, and get_user_pnl_series for PnL over time. When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both stated.

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