Global Stats

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive. The description adds information annotations cannot carry: the indexed trade window (2025-03-22 onward as of version 0.11.4) and the fact that data_coverage reports freshness of every dataset. That freshness/window context is genuinely useful for interpreting results, though the response shape itself remains unspecified.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and metrics, then usage, then the version/window caveat. The final sentence is dense but every clause carries substantive 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the headline return fields and flags data-freshness caveats, which is about as complete as a zero-required-parameter read tool needs. It stops short of describing the nested structure of the coverage report.

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?

Only one parameter (useToonFormat), and the schema documents it at 100% coverage with the default and the false-case behavior. The description adds no parameter semantics; its dataStartDate/dataEndDate references are output fields, not inputs, which could momentarily be mistaken for parameters.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get global Hyperliquid trading statistics') and enumerates the metrics returned (traders, trades, volume, PnL, coverage period). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the many per-trader and per-cohort siblings via 'global' and 'overall scale of the market,' though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

'Use this to understand the overall scale of the market' gives a real use case but no when-not-to-use guidance and no explicit alternatives, despite a sibling literally named data_coverage that overlaps with the mentioned coverage reporting.

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