get_hl_trade_history

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 trait beyond annotations ('No auth required'), but says nothing about pagination, time-window limits, or result size for what is presumably a long historical list.

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, front-loaded with the resource and venue; no filler and nothing buried. Every clause carries signal.

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 read with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials of calling it. However, with no output schema there is a real gap: it never indicates what a 'trade history' record contains or whether results are bounded, which an agent needs to consume the response sensibly.

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 fully documents walletAddress. The description's 'for a wallet' merely echoes that parameter without adding format or chain-specific details, so 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 (Get), resource (trade history), venue (HyperLiquid) and scope (a wallet). This distinguishes it from the generic sibling get_trade_history, though the relationship between the two is left implicit rather than called out.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing between this and the near-identical sibling get_trade_history. 'No auth required' is context, not usage direction; the agent must infer that this is the HyperLiquid-specific variant.

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