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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: it names the authentication requirement (Carry Oracle key), scopes the output to every perp market and dex, and lists concrete return fields including 7-day changes and risk flags. It stops short of covering pagination, rate limits, or response format, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 description is three tight sentences that are front-loaded with the returned data, then the auth requirement, then the usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague language.

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 read-only listing tool with no input parameters and no output schema, the description provides a complete picture: what it returns, the required key, and exactly when to use it versus funding-related tools. Annotations already cover the safety profile, so nothing essential is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema has no parameter semantics to document. Per the rules, zero parameters yields a baseline of 4; no additional meaning can be added beyond what the empty schema provides.

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 states a specific resource (every Hyperliquid perp market and dex) and the exact data categories returned (status, OI and volume with 7-day change, growth mode, risk flags). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by saying 'not for funding levels', which separates it from carry_funding_matrix and funding_alerts.

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 use case ('market and dex health (delistings, OI drops)'), a prerequisite ('Requires a Carry Oracle key'), and an explicit exclusion ('not for funding levels'). The agent has enough to decide when to call this versus the funding-focused siblings without inferring.

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