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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds important behavioral context: per-call cost, payment via x402 with USDC on Base, and that failed calls are not charged. It does not cover rate limits, latency, or freshness guarantees, but it significantly reduces uncertainty for a paid read-only tool.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: the first front-loads the purpose and scope, and the second delivers cost and payment behavior. There is no filler or repetition.

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 data retrieval tool with no output schema, the description does a good job covering sources, timeframe, Hyperliquid detail, and payment behavior. It could be stronger by saying more about the returned shape or default limit behavior, but the essential context is present.

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%, so the schema already fully documents limit and token. The description does not add syntax, defaults, or interpretation beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (biggest market orders), a clear time window (last hour), and named venues (Binance futures, Binance spot, Hyperliquid), plus the Hyperliquid execution detail. This is enough to distinguish it from siblings like orderbook, liquidations, and prices.

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 by the purpose and cost note, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as orderbook or prices_free. It gives useful cost context but no exclusions or explicit alternative routing.

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