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 genuine context beyond that: the tool is free (no cost to call) and is factual rather than advisory, which sets expectations for how output should be treated. It does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, and the cost cue ("Free") is front-loaded where it influences tool selection. The second sentence is a dense but well-organized enumeration of the outputs rather than padding.

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 the description compensates well by enumerating the returned metrics (risk USD/%, margin vs free margin, volume share, comparison to AgentZ limits). What is missing is any note on required inputs or failure modes, but for a read-only computation tool this is largely sufficient.

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 five parameters (market, wallet, size_usd, leverage, stop_pct) are already documented with examples and defaults in the schema. The description references stop, margin, and volume concepts but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific operation (risk assessment of a proposed trade) against named resources (the Hyperliquid account and market), and enumerates the concrete outputs: USD risk, % of equity at stop, margin needed vs free margin, and order size vs 24h volume. It never names a sibling such as build_order or trade_conditions, so an agent gets a clear purpose but must infer the boundary itself.

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?

"Describes a proposed trade" implies pre-trade usage, and "Free" plus "Factual, not advice" signals when it is safe to call. However there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement that it does not place an order (versus build_order), and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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