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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the price ($0.003) and, notably, that it surfaces the operator's own scalper positions (a conflict-of-interest disclosure), but it omits what happens if payment is absent and any rate/return behavior beyond the listed fields.

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 tightly packed sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and metrics, ending with the disclosure and price. No filler; every clause conveys a distinct data or payment fact.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned metrics and stating the price and disclosure. The per-call payment mechanics are covered by the schema, leaving only minor gaps like return shape or error behavior.

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?

There is a single `payment` parameter with 100% schema description coverage that fully explains the x402 signed payload flow. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the schema does all the work and 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?

States a specific resource (Hyperliquid perps) and behavior (moving abnormally right now) plus the exact metrics surfaced (60s/5min move, usual move, z-score, funding, volume, OI). It is clearly distinct from sibling market tools by specifying the Hyperliquid perps scope, though it never names an alternative to route against.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'moving abnormally right now' suggests a real-time anomaly-screening context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or comparison to similar sibling tools like arc_dip_signals or whale_ticker. The agent must infer the situation.

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