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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description carries the behavioral burden and delivers substantively: the tool is paid in USDC on Base, risk_flags come from fixed numeric thresholds only, and Hyperliquid's public API has no leaderboard endpoint so discovery/ranking is impossible. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, and every subsequent sentence adds distinct value (scope limit, threshold behavior, exclusions, payment). It is slightly verbose at about 110 words for a one-parameter tool, but the density of caveats justifies the length.

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 an output schema present, annotations covering safety, and a single well-documented parameter, the description covers usage scope, exclusions, and payment currency/chain. The only noticeable gap is the exact payment amount, which is not essential for correct selection or invocation but would be useful for cost-sensitive agents.

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?

The input schema fully documents the only parameter (address) at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the address must be user-supplied and Hyperliquid/EVM, but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('audit a Hyperliquid wallet address'), enumerates exactly what is returned (every open perp position with side, size, leverage, unrealized PnL, liquidation price, distance-to-liquidation), and explicitly contrasts with smart-money discovery/ranking. This makes the tool's scope unambiguous even among siblings that could sound similar.

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?

It explicitly states the condition for use ('a Hyperliquid wallet address you already know') and gives clear when-not guidance: not for smart-money discovery (with a rationale), not for spot price data, and not for any exchange other than Hyperliquid. This is explicit usage scoping that prevents common misuses without needing a named sibling alternative.

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