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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that it returns plain perp coins and numbered outcome markets with keys like '#12090', and mentions the filter is case-insensitive. However, it does not explain the behavior of the limit or includeOutcomes parameters, nor any potential side effects or limitations. It adds some value but is not thorough.

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?

The description is compact and front-loads the core value proposition. It wastes little space, though the filter example could be integrated more clearly. Overall it is efficient and well-structured.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain the return format more precisely. It only states it returns perp coins and outcome markets, but not the structure or how limit/includeOutcomes affect the result. The inconsistency with the filter parameter also undermines completeness.

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?

The schema descriptions for 'limit' and 'includeOutcomes' are extremely vague ('Limit to process', 'IncludeOutcomes to process'), and the description does not clarify them. Worse, the description introduces a 'filter' parameter with an example, but that parameter is not present in the schema, creating confusion. Schema coverage is 100% but the descriptions are unhelpful, and the description fails to compensate.

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 returns all Hyperliquid mid prices, distinguishing it from other Hyperliquid tools by the specific resource (mid prices) and mentioning it covers both perp coins and outcome markets. It explicitly says it is the cheapest way to price a whole portfolio, which strongly conveys its purpose.

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 implies when to use it ('cheapest way to price a whole portfolio or screen the exchange') and gives a filter example, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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