get_account_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds a genuinely useful trait not present in structured data — 'No auth required' — and, in the absence of an output schema, enumerates what the returned state contains. It does not mention freshness/caching or rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero filler; the resource scope and returned fields lead, and the auth note is relegated to a short trailing clause.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers both what comes back and the auth posture, which is sufficient to call it correctly. The missing piece is routing versus the many sibling account/state tools.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains walletAddress. The description adds no format, chain, or validation detail beyond implying the account belongs to a wallet — 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get full HyperLiquid account state') and enumerates the returned content (positions, margin, balance, withdrawable amount). However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_hl_clearinghouse_state, get_hl_spot_state, or get_perp_positions, which plausibly return overlapping data.

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?

No guidance on when to prefer this over the several sibling state/balance tools (get_hl_clearinghouse_state, get_usdc_balance, get_portfolio). Usage must be inferred from the resource name alone; 'No auth required' is context, not a selection criterion.

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