COINGLASS_HYPERLIQUID_WHALE_POSITION

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions the value threshold but omits details like data freshness, pagination, rate limits, or whether the data is real-time or historical. The description does not disclose any significant behavioral aspects beyond the basic query.

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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information. Every word is necessary.

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 the tool has only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. However, it lacks details about the returned data structure (e.g., fields, format) and any usage constraints. For a low-complexity tool, it is adequate but not thorough.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a description for 'prettyFormat'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is complete, a baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states what the tool does: 'Get Hyperliquid whale positions (value over $1M)'. It specifies the exact resource ('Hyperliquid whale positions') and a specific threshold ('value over $1M'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like COINGLASS_HYPERLIQUID_WHALE_ALERT or COINGLASS_FUNDING_RATE.

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 implies usage when needing large positions on Hyperliquid, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., COINGLASS_HYPERLIQUID_WHALE_ALERT for alerts). No exclusion criteria or context is given.

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