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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior with readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context about the returned data fields (mark price, 24h change, volume, funding), but does not disclose other behavioral details such as response structure or error conditions.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the trigger condition, and the parenthetical enumerates the returned metrics efficiently. No redundant words or repetition of the tool name or schema.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description is sufficiently complete: it names the resource, the data points returned, and when to invoke it. No output schema exists, so the listed fields partially compensate, though it leaves edge cases (invalid symbol, unavailable market) unaddressed.

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%, and the symbol parameter is well described with examples and an exclusion ('not BTCUSDT'). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 the tool's function: retrieving the current price of a specific coin on Hyperliquid. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on 'a specific coin' and 'current price', and clarifies the included data (mark price, 24h change, volume, funding), making it easily differentiated from get_markets or get_candles.

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 to use this tool when the user asks for the current price of a specific coin. It gives clear context for when it applies, though it does not mention alternatives or scenarios where another tool should be used, such as get_markets for all markets.

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