Market Price

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the description does not need to restate that. The description adds the 'current mark price' semantic and symbol-format scope, but it does not disclose return-shape details or rate-limit/error behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the symbol-format nuance in the second sentence. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

For a two-parameter price lookup with rich read-only annotations and full schema coverage, the description plus schema cover what the tool needs: symbol formats, current-price semantics, and output-format switch. It does not enumerate the exact return fields since no output schema exists, but it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both `symbol` and `useToonFormat` already documented in the input schema. The description largely repeats the symbol examples from the schema rather than adding new parameter-level meaning, so it stays at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current mark price for any trading pair on Hyperliquid'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also names accepted symbol formats, distinguishing it from sibling market tools like orderbook, candles, and OI tools.

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?

It gives concrete guidance on how to specify symbols—standard tickers vs builder dex prefix:COIN—so an agent knows exactly what inputs are valid. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for a simple price lookup.

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