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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: the result is aggregates only, the data is signed, and crucially this is a paid call ($0.03 USDC via x402 on Base or Solana) — pricing that an agent must know before invoking.

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 purpose, then the returned metrics, then the disclaimers and price. The first sentence is dense and run-on with a long metric list, but every clause conveys something an agent needs (field set, aggregate-only, signed, cost).

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 and no parameters, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape, which it does fairly well by naming each metric family and the supplementary 'top coins nearby' list. Minor gaps remain — what 'flags' encode and whether there is a time window are unspecified.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no argument semantics to explain, and the description appropriately spends its words on the data returned instead of nonexistent inputs.

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 a specific resource and scope: liquidation pressure across Hyperliquid's largest perps, enumerating the exact metrics returned (proximity bands, cascade ratios, depth, OI coverage, flags). It is clearly distinguishable from a data-fetch verb, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling liq_perp (single-perp variant), leaving that distinction 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the market-wide, aggregate framing signals this is the scan-all-perps tool rather than a single-coin lookup, but there is no explicit 'use this when X, use liq_perp when Y', no prerequisites, and no exclusions.

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