get_hl_meta_and_asset_ctxs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and network scope are covered. The description adds one genuinely non-structured fact — that no authentication is required — but says nothing about freshness, rate limits, or the shape of the returned metadata/contexts.

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, no filler, with the purpose front-loaded and the auth constraint appended. Every element earns its place.

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-parameter read tool this is minimally viable, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with no output schema, the description leaves the agent guessing at what 'asset contexts' actually contains (per-asset funding, open interest, oracle prices, etc.), which is a meaningful gap for callers consuming the result.

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 no parameter semantics for the description to carry and the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is reported at 100% for an empty properties object, adding nothing to explain.

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 ('Get') and resource ('market metadata and asset contexts') along with the source ('HyperLiquid'), so the agent knows this is a market-data read. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as get_hl_all_assets, get_hl_perp_dexes, or get_hl_clearinghouse_state, leaving the boundary unclear.

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' is a useful precondition, but the description never says when to reach for this tool versus the other HyperLiquid market-meta siblings, nor what situation it suits. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance.

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