get_spot_l4_diffs

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. Description adds that it is live from a specific date (2026-05-05) and returns 'raw order-level changes', which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 sentences: first states purpose and tier, second explains symbol format and return content, third notes data availability. Zero wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description covers purpose, data type, and availability. It does not explain pagination or defaults beyond schema, but these are in parameters. The tool's complexity is moderate and description is sufficient alongside schema and annotations.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with detailed parameter descriptions, including examples and defaults. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it merely echoes the symbol format. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema carries the burden.

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?

Explicitly states it gets Hyperliquid Spot L4 orderbook diffs, distinguishes from siblings like get_spot_l4_orderbook (snapshot) and get_l4_diffs (futures) by specifying 'Spot' and 'diffs'. The description also clarifies that it returns raw order-level changes over a time range, making its function unique.

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?

Mentions Pro+ tier tier requirement, providing context for eligibility. Does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives, but the distinction from siblings is clear via naming and description. The description implies it is for diff-based queries rather than snapshots or historical records.

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