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

Annotations already cover read-only/non-destructive safety, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: quantified outputs (violation_bp, max_riskless_profit_per_usd), caveats that profits are before fees/slippage/execution risk, an explicit not-investment-advice disclaimer, a no-new-upstream-call cache note, the exact comparison constraint (only same expiry/period rungs), and the payment rail (USDC on Base).

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?

Front-loaded with the core concept, and each sentence earns its place (definition, outputs, caveats, cache reuse, comparison scope, payment). It is dense and runs long as one sentence-heavy block, but nothing is wasted.

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, return values needn't be re-explained, yet the description still names the key output fields. A single required parameter, read-only annotations, and full behavioral framing make this complete for correct invocation.

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 there is a single parameter (underlying) already documented in the schema with examples. The description adds no additional syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb (Finds) and resource (monotonicity violations among Hyperliquid HIP-4 'above $X' price-binary markets), and defines the exact logical relationship being detected (higher strike Yes price exceeding lower strike). It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it reuses prediction.hip4_price_ladder's cache rather than making a new upstream call.

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 its role (mispricing/arbitrage detection on top of the price ladder) and clarifies its relationship to hip4_price_ladder, but never explicitly states when to choose this over hip4_price, hip4_price_ladder, or neg_risk_arbitrage. Usage context is inferable rather than stated.

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