pulse_exchange_volume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that data is aggregated and cached up to 120s, which is important for an agent to understand freshness. It does not explicitly state read-only safety, but the nature of a volume query implies no destructive side effects. A minor gap is not mentioning if large queries could be rate-limited.

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 concise sentences, each adding distinct value: what, how to use, and a behavioral caveat. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description adequately hints at the return structure (volume by DEX with match counts and traders). For a single-parameter boolean tool, the description is thorough. A perfect 5 might include a note about return format or units, but the current description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what comes back.

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% for the single parameter, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (default true for toon format). This is acceptable given the simple boolean parameter.

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 provides the 24h trading volume for the whole exchange, split by DEX (native Hyperliquid and builder dexes), including per-dex match counts and distinct traders. This specific verb (volume) and resource (exchange) distinguish it from siblings like pulse_global_stats or pulse_exchange_oi.

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 includes an explicit use case: 'how much volume does Hyperliquid do?' and a critical note that builder dexes (~43%) are often omitted by public trackers. This guides the agent to use this tool when needing total exchange volume with DEX breakdown, versus other volume-related siblings that may not provide this granularity.

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