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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description only needs to add behavioral context. It mentions page size of up to 100 and cursor-based pagination, but those details are also in the schema, and it does not disclose auth needs, rate limits, or error behavior. The note about live HIP-4 outcomes adds some useful context, but overall the description adds only modest value beyond annotations and schema.

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 three sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by a concrete search example and pagination guidance. It is compact and every sentence contributes useful information without repetition.

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 seven optional parameters, an output schema, and read-only/open-world annotations, the description covers the core task: resolving market names, searching, paginating, and distinguishing live outcomes. The only notable gap is lack of explicit routing guidance versus sibling tools, but the tool is otherwise complete enough for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description improves on that with a concrete q search example showing that q=nvda returns xyz:NVDA-PERP and other NVDA perps, which clarifies search semantics beyond the schema. Other parameters are left to their already thorough schema descriptions.

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: it explains how a Hyperliquid market is named and enumerates perps, spot, and live HIP-4 outcomes. It is clear what the tool returns, including symbol, class, issuer, base asset, and Hyperliquid coin. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as get_markets_snapshot, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The description gives a useful search usage cue with the q=nvda example and explains pagination via cursor. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of get_markets_snapshot, get_price, or other market-related siblings, nor does it state when to omit filters. Usage is implied rather than fully guided.

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