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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about the default list mode versus targeted address lookup, but it does not disclose rate limits, auth requirements, or data freshness.

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 efficient sentences with no wasted wording. The main purpose and the key optional-parameter behavior are front-loaded.

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 full schema coverage, read-only/open-world annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies enough context to invoke the tool correctly. It explains what labels are available and how the addresses parameter changes behavior, without needing to restate return values.

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 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds meaning for the optional addresses parameter and the default listing behavior, but smart_top_n and whale_top_n are only explained by the schema.

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 clearly identifies the resource as labels for notable Hyperliquid wallets and names the covered categories: top whales by volume, top traders by PnL, vaults, and vault leaders. It also explains the optional address-based lookup, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with closely related siblings such as get_top_traders or get_vault_leaderboard.

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 clear usage guidance for the optional addresses parameter: pass addresses to check specific wallets, omit them to list whales and smart money. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of the many sibling ranking/leaderboard tools.

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