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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state 'public on-chain data,' implying a read-only operation)Skip, but it doesn't mention potential absence of account data, API freshness, or the format of returned values beyond metric names.

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 tight sentences deliver an effective purpose statement followed by usage context. Every sentence earns its place, and the core capability is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers purpose and high-level output fields, but with no output schema, no annotations, and three ambiguous parameters, it leaves the agent uncertain about which parameter is needed and how the returned data is structured.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the useful hint to pass a 0x address leave, but it does not clarify the distinction or relationship among the user, wallet, and address parameters, leaving selection ambiguous.

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 retrieves Hyperliquid perpetual account state for any address, enumerating specific metrics and raw open positions. It is distinct from sibling tools like hyperliquid-book or hyperliquid-funding, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains that the data is public and that any 0x address can be passed, with examples including one's own, a counterparty's, or a whale's address. It gives clear context for when to use it, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling Hyperliquid tools or list exclusions.

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