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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'margin details' which is useful but not critical beyond annotations. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, rate limits) are disclosed. With good annotations, a 3 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 a single sentence: 'Get account summary and margin details for a user wallet on Hyperliquid'. It is front-loaded with the verb and main object, concise with no wasted words.

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 tool with a simple input (one parameter) and an output schema (indicated by context), the description covers the main functionality. It does not explain edge cases (e.g., invalid wallet address), but that is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema.

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% (the single parameter 'user' is described as 'User wallet address (0x...)'). The description does not add any further information about the parameter beyond what is in the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly states 'Get account summary and margin details for a user wallet on Hyperliquid', with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('account summary and margin details'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hyperliquid.account.positions (positions) or hyperliquid.markets.data (market 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?

The description makes it obvious when to use this tool: when needing account-level summary and margin info for a specific wallet. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the tool name and context of sibling tools (e.g., positions) provide clear context. Lacking explicit exclusions drops it from 5 to 4.

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