botindex_hl_coin_analytics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the analytics scope but doesn't describe what 'deep analytics' entails operationally—no information about rate limits, authentication needs, whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, response format, or any behavioral traits. The cost mention adds some context but insufficient for a mutation-capable analytics tool.

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 appropriately concise—two short phrases that communicate core functionality and cost. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. The cost mention could be considered extraneous but doesn't significantly detract from efficiency.

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 an analytics tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'deep analytics' returns, how results are structured, whether there are pagination or filtering options, or any behavioral constraints. The cost mention adds some context but doesn't compensate for the missing operational details needed for effective tool use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'address' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't clarify format expectations, provide examples beyond what the schema shows, or explain how the address affects the analytics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Deep analytics for a specific Hyperliquid coin' and lists specific metrics (OI, funding, volume, liquidation history), which gives a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'botindex_hl_correlation_matrix' or 'botindex_hl_funding_arb' that might also analyze Hyperliquid data, so it doesn't reach the highest level of sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus other analytics tools in the sibling list, or any exclusions. The only contextual hint is the cost ('$0.05'), but this doesn't constitute usage guidance.

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