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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the data provenance (computed from recent fills, order book and market context) and the fact that values are returned as categories rather than raw numbers, which shapes interpretation. It stops short of discussing staleness or rate limits.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned before the when-to-use clause. The middle list of metrics is dense but each item earns its place as a distinct output. Slightly long but no wasted framing.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the five returned metrics and their categorical nature. The 'detail' parameter's effect on returns is left to the schema. Adequate for a read-only snapshot tool, though it never clarifies freshness of the data.

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 fully documents both 'symbol' (ticker and HIP-3 'dex:COIN' formats) and 'detail' (brief vs full). The description adds only the word 'compact', which is redundant with the schema's own explanation; 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?

States a specific verb (returns) plus resource (orderflow reading for one Hyperliquid perpetual market) and enumerates the exact outputs: CVD direction, OBI, VPIN, funding, open interest. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_funding_rates because the scope is explicitly a composite per-market snapshot.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: 'when the user asks about buying or selling pressure, order book balance, flow toxicity, funding or open interest for one coin or HIP-3 market.' It does not name the sibling it overlaps with (get_funding_rates) or state exclusions, so no 5.

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