get_hl_all_assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true (an external network read), and the description adds the genuinely useful 'No auth' detail. It stops there — no mention of whether results are cached, how large the list is, or whether it can fail/rate-limit.

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 clauses with zero filler: the resource and its key attribute are front-loaded, and the auth precondition trails as a single token.

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 zero-param read with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description says what is returned (all tradeable assets, with max leverage) and that no auth is needed. Minor gap: it doesn't clarify perp vs spot coverage or the response shape, which an agent may need to pick among the many HyperLiquid read siblings.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly signals a no-argument call.

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 all tradeable assets on HyperLiquid') plus the payload detail ('max leverage info'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It doesn't differentiate itself from closely related siblings like get_hl_meta_and_asset_ctxs or get_hl_perp_dexes, which also surface perp asset 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 auth' gives one useful call precondition, but the description never says when to choose this over the sibling asset/meta endpoints, or whether it covers spot vs perp. Usage is only implied by the purpose statement.

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