get_hl_spot_state

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 behavioral fact beyond the annotations — 'No auth required' — but says nothing about what the returned 'state' contains, whether it is paginated, or how fresh it is.

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 zero filler, purpose front-loaded before the auth note. Every clause earns its place and nothing is buried.

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 read-only getter the safety bar is low, and annotations plus a fully documented single parameter cover most of the ground. The gap is that with no output schema, the vague term 'state' never tells the agent what data actually comes back (balances, open orders, holdings), which is the main thing it needs to route correctly.

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% for the single parameter ('Wallet address to query'), so the schema already carries the parameter's meaning. The description adds no format, chain, or address-type detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 qualified resource ('HyperLiquid spot trading state for a wallet'), which is far clearer than a bare name. However, it does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings like get_hl_clearinghouse_state, get_hl_outcome_account, or get_account_state, leaving the agent to guess what 'spot trading state' uniquely returns.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. The only routing-adjacent statement is 'No auth required', which is a constraint rather than usage direction, so the agent gets no help choosing between this and the many other HyperLiquid state readers.

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