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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; "what a Hyperliquid address traded" and "poll it" imply a read-only, repeatable query, and the breakdown of grouped fields adds useful behavioral context. It does not address whether the address must be a registered leader, rate limits, or whether the window is capped at the server side.

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, front-loaded with the core answer and then the polling intent; there is no filler. The parenthetical field list is dense but justified given no output schema exists.

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?

A simple read tool with no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back, and it does: per-market grouping, the metrics included, and a latest-fills list. Only minor gaps remain, such as ordering of the latest-fills section and behavior for addresses with no recent activity.

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 address, limit and sinceMinutes are already documented with ranges and defaults. The description reinforces the window semantics ("fills since N minutes ago") and that limit governs the "latest fills" section, but adds no format or interpretation detail beyond the schema.

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 subject and output: what a Hyperliquid address traded recently, grouped per market with opens, closes, flips, dollars bought/sold and profit taken, plus latest fills. The aggregation framing distinguishes it conceptually from a raw fills listing, but it never names the closest sibling (get_hyperliquid_user_fills), leaving that differentiation to inference.

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?

"Poll it to follow a leader between your runs" implies the copy-trading monitoring context and the polling cadence, which is real usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use, no named alternative for raw/single-fill lookups, and no statement on how it relates to get_copy_trade_wallet or list_copy_trade_leaders.

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