get_hl_top_traders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses two behavioral traits beyond the schema: no authentication required and a 15-minute cache (stale-data risk). It does not disclose rate limits, pagination, or what the returned leaderboard contains.

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 terse sentences with the operation first and the operational constraints second. No filler, every clause 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 single-parameter, no-auth read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns, how it is ranked, and the caching staleness constraint. Only the shape of the returned leaderboard entries is left unspecified.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'sort' with its accepted values. The description's restatement of the same three options adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 top HyperLiquid perp traders') and the ranking criteria (volume, trade count, deposit). The volume/count/deposit framing implicitly distinguishes it from get_hl_top_traders_by_pnl, but it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

It gives the reader context ('No auth. Cached 15 min.') that helps decide whether to call it, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to the closely-related get_hl_top_traders_by_pnl sibling.

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