Exchange Volume

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing that aggregates are cached up to 120 seconds and that builder dexes constitute ~43% of volume. This goes beyond what annotations express.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler: main data scope, breakdown, metrics, use case, and caching note all fit naturally. Key information is front-loaded.

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 one-optional-parameter aggregate tool, the description covers the data dimensions returned, scope, caching, and a concrete user query. No output schema exists, but the description supplies the essential output semantics without requiring an agent to guess.

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% and the single optional parameter, useToonFormat, is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states the exact resource (24h trading volume for the entire exchange), the breakdown by dex, and the specific metrics included (match counts, distinct traders). It distinguishes the whole-exchange scope from sibling tools focused on other aggregates such as OI or positions.

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?

Provides an explicit use case: "Use for 'how much volume does Hyperliquid do?'" and clarifies the exchange-wide scope. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the use case is concrete enough for an agent to route correctly.

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