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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden alone. It does disclose useful behavior: the default scope is core and HIP-3 assets only appear with scope=all, and results include live volume and funding. It omits auth requirements, pagination/limit behavior, and ordering, so it is helpful but not complete.

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 dense sentences with the resource and field inventory front-loaded, followed by the one scoping rule that changes how the tool is called. Nothing redundant and no wasted framing.

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?

For a five-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the returned fields and the key scope default. Minor gaps remain, such as what volume/funding units mean and how limit ordering interacts with scope, but an agent could call it correctly from this.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: it explains that scope=all is what unlocks HIP-3 markets, whereas the schema merely says 'Default core'. It also restates the asset-class taxonomy that maps to the assetClass enum.

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 names the resource precisely ('Security master for Hyperliquid perps') and enumerates the fields it returns (symbol, dex, desk label, short symbol, display name, asset class, volume, funding), so an agent knows exactly what the tool yields. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_hyperliquid_markets or screen_hyperliquid_markets, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 gives one concrete usage rule: default scope=core, pass scope=all for HIP-3. That tells the agent how to widen coverage but says nothing about when to choose this master list over list_hyperliquid_markets, rank_hyperliquid_markets, or screen_hyperliquid_markets, so the alternative-selection guidance is missing.

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