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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lists returned fields and mentions sortability, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, or potential response size implications for 'every listed perp'. It neither contradicts annotations (none exist) nor provides explicit safety or performance disclaimers, making it partially transparent.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then details the data fields, and ends with a benefit statement. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is concise 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?

While the description lists the data fields, it does not explain the 'limit' parameter's effect or the response structure (e.g., whether it returns a list of objects). With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify these operational details. It covers the main purpose but leaves the parameter semantics and return format underspecified.

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 describes the single 'limit' parameter as 'Limit to process', which is vague. The description does not mention this parameter at all, so it adds no clarity. Given 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and since the description neither clarifies nor contradicts, it remains at baseline. The parameter's meaning is not enhanced beyond the minimal schema note.

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 a Hyperliquid perpetual futures overview across all listed perps, enumerating specific data fields (mark/oracle/mid price, hourly funding rate, open interest, 24h notional volume, max leverage). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like x402-hyperliquid-book or x402-hyperliquid-funding, which focus on specific aspects. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 usage for obtaining a full board before committing capital, which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for specific perp data. The statement 'One call gives a perp trading agent the full board' signals a broad overview use case, but exclusions are left implicit.

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