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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'without a portfolio lookup' scoping detail, which clarifies behavior. However, it doesn't disclose what the output contains beyond positions and liquidation risk, nor any rate limits or data freshness. With annotations covering the main behavioral traits, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

One sentence with zero waste. The core action and the key differentiator ('without a portfolio lookup') are front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has a rich output schema and 100% parameter schema coverage, so the description doesn't need to explain return values or parameters. The only minor gap is that it doesn't mention the optional filters/sorting capabilities, but those are fully documented in the schema. For a read-only lookup tool with strong structured metadata, this is nearly complete.

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 schema already documents the address and all filter/orderBy fields thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct 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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('a wallet's Hyperliquid positions and liquidation risk'), and a distinguishing constraint ('without a portfolio lookup'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like address_portfolio and address_historical_balances. The title reinforces the purpose.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need positions and liquidation risk specifically, and explicitly excludes the portfolio lookup path. However, it doesn't name sibling alternatives or state when NOT to use it (e.g., use address_portfolio for full portfolio context). The 'without a portfolio lookup' phrase gives some exclusion guidance but not a full routing rule.

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