get_all_mid_prices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful operational fact, 'No auth required', but says nothing about response shape, freshness/staleness of prices, rate limits, or whether assets with no mid price are omitted.

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 with no filler, and the scope ('all HyperLiquid assets') is front-loaded before the operational note about auth. Nothing could be cut without losing 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?

For a no-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, this covers the core need: what it returns, over what universe, and that no credentials are needed. A brief note on return format or price staleness would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the schema is an empty object and there is nothing for the description to document. No misleading parameter discussion is present.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get all current mid prices') plus an explicit scope ('across all HyperLiquid assets'), so an agent knows exactly what the call returns. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the closely named sibling get_mark_price, so an agent comparing the two still has to infer the difference.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'all current' signals a bulk price snapshot, which suggests calling it when you want a market-wide view rather than a single-asset quote. No explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative (e.g. get_mark_price for a single asset) is stated.

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