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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses material invocation facts: it returns aggregates only and never wallet addresses, is signed, is not investment advice, and costs $0.01 USDC per call via x402 on Base or Solana. The paid/payment-rail disclosure is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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 usage trigger is front-loaded in the first clause and the returned fields are packed into one dense but readable sentence, followed by short compliance and pricing fragments. No filler, though the field list is long enough that a bulleted structure would scan faster.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return shape — and it does, enumerating the cohort counts, net USD, change, concentration, leverage, OI share and crowd metrics. Pricing, data-privacy, and disclaimer coverage round out what an agent needs before calling.

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% for the single `coin` parameter, so the schema already carries the symbol format and case-sensitivity rule. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb and resource ('see how its most profitable traders are positioned' on a Hyperliquid perpetual) and enumerates the exact payload (long/short wallet counts, net USD, 24h change, concentration, leverage, OI share, crowd comparison). It implicitly separates itself from crowd_perp by scoping to the 200-wallet smart-money cohort, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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 a clear situational trigger — 'Use before acting on a Hyperliquid perpetual' — and a concrete signal to act on ('flags smart money positioned against a crowded move'). What is missing is explicit routing: no mention of when crowd_perp, perp_full, or liq_perp would be the better call, and no exclusions.

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