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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: a per-call cost ($0.001/call), the tracked metric names (longs_near_liq_usd, shorts_near_liq_usd), and a 24h confirmation window. Return pagination is not addressed, but the cost disclosure is meaningful context.

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 ranking rule, followed by metrics, cost, and use case — information ordered by importance. Faint redundancy between the opening clause and 'Use to scan...' but no padding.

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, the description helpfully names the returned fields and the liquidation window. However, for a two-parameter tool it omits any explanation of n, and it never clarifies how it relates to the sibling hl_liquidations, which is a real gap for an agent choosing between them.

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 50%. The description references within_pct ('within within_pct% of liquidation'), reinforcing the schema's existing description, but the n parameter is undocumented in both schema and description — an agent cannot tell it is the result-count cap. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb and resource: Hyperliquid coins 'ranked by tracked notional within within_pct% of liquidation', and names the two output fields. The scan is clearly distinguishable from a generic listing. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling hl_liquidations, which appears to overlap on liquidations data.

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?

'Use to scan which Hyperliquid coins have the most positions close to liquidation' gives a usage context, so intent is implied rather than absent. But there is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of hl_liquidations as the alternative, leaving overlap with that sibling unresolved.

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