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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, open-world, so the bar is lower; the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: default venue is native only, named assets like Nvidia are resolved to a venue, and empty native results are not exhaustive. Return format/pagination are still unstated.

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?

Three dense sentences with no waste; the primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by parameter behavior and then the interpretation caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 3-param read tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description supplies the key resolution semantics and a meaningful caveat about empty results. It is nearly complete, missing only explicit guidance on the dex/asset interaction and what a populated response looks like.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it explains the asset parameter (optional, named markets resolved to a venue) and the venue default behind the dex parameter. It never explicitly ties these to the parameter names, but the intent is recoverable.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: positions for one public Hyperliquid wallet on one perpetual venue. Implicitly scopes to a single wallet (vs. the plural sibling get_hyperliquid_wallets_positions) but never names that near-identical sibling, leaving some disambiguation to inference.

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 for positions of one public Hyperliquid wallet on one perpetual venue" gives clear usage context, and the caveat that an empty native result does not establish absence across venues is genuinely actionable. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are named, so it stops short of 5.

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