get_account_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful trait: 'No auth required,' which tells the agent it can call this without credentials. Beyond that it does not state read-only semantics explicitly, rate limits, error behavior for an unknown address, or freshness of the data — gaps that matter for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the resource and its payload front-loaded and the auth constraint trailing as a qualifier. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 does list the key returned fields, which is the right thing to do for a read tool. It is nearly complete but stops short of distinguishing this from sibling state readers that appear to return comparable data.

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% with a single well-named required parameter (walletAddress), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format hints (address casing, chain qualification) beyond what the schema already states.

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), so the purpose is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from near-identical siblings such as get_hl_clearinghouse_state, get_balances, get_portfolio, or get_wallet_info, which an agent must disambiguate before calling.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and never names an alternative, despite a crowded field of overlapping account/balance readers. The only conditional information is the auth note, which is a prerequisite rather than usage routing.

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