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: it is 'free', covers a fixed 30-day window, operates on public data, and explicitly avoids advice. It does not mention rate limits or output format, but given the annotations and the tool's read-only nature, the added context is meaningful.

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: a front-loaded scope statement followed by a clear disclaimer. Every clause earns its place by either defining the resource, listing the returned metrics, or disambiguating advice versus facts. No filler.

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?

There is no output schema and only one parameter, so the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns, which it does by enumerating the metrics. It also clarifies the safety profile beyond annotations. It stops short of explaining the comparison capability or output format, but it is nearly complete for a read-only diagnostic tool.

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% and the single parameter 'wallet' is fully described in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it does not restate the 0x… format). 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 names a specific verb and resource: 'A factual review of any wallet's public Hyperliquid perp trading over the last 30 days'. It then enumerates the exact metrics returned (volume, realised P&L, win rate, fees, holding time, weekend vs weekday, largest fill vs market volume, builder-code share), making its scope unmistakable among siblings like risk_check or get_track_record.

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 says 'Describes and compares only; not advice' and 'Free', which implies this is a diagnostic/analysis tool rather than an action tool, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as risk_check or get_track_record. Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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