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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds valuable behavioral context: the 15-minute snapshot comparison for delta, the confidence percentage, the manually curated watchlist, and the empty result if the watchlist is unfilled. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand reliability and output conditions.

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 a single dense sentence that packs the core purpose, key metrics, differentiation, and an important caveat. It is front-loaded with the main function and stays concise without excessive length. The structure is effective for quick scanning by an agent.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain the return value structure. It mentions the delta, confidence, and empty condition, but does not detail the exact fields or how 'summary' vs 'full' affects the response. The schema references a docs file, but the description itself leaves some gaps about the response format.

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 does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides; it focuses on the data semantics rather than the parameters themselves. The schema already explains 'detail' with summary/full options and coin format, so the description adds no extra value here.

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 states it aggregates Hyperliquid whale wallet positions for a single coin, with delta and confidence metrics. It differentiates from candle/orderbook data, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools. The verb is implied by the tool name and the resource is well-defined, making the purpose clear enough for an agent to understand what it does.

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 contrasts with candle/orderbook data by noting it shows real on-chain positions that can't be spoofed, providing some context on when to use this tool. However, it does not name specific alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it. The empty-condition caveat is useful but does not replace direct usage guidance.

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