get_hl_trade_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that no authentication is needed, but says nothing about time-range limits, pagination, result caps, or what the history contains — meaningful gaps for a history query that can return unbounded data.

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, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the auth note. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition is minimally viable: purpose and auth posture are covered. However, it omits result scope (time window, pagination, size limits), which an agent needs to know before calling a history endpoint.

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 walletAddress parameter, so the schema already documents it. The phrase 'for a wallet' merely restates the parameter's existence without adding format or constraint detail, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (trade history) scoped to a platform (HyperLiquid) and an entity (a wallet). The 'on HyperLiquid' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling get_trade_history, though it never explicitly routes the agent between them.

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 statement of when to use this over the closely named sibling get_trade_history, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The only guidance-like content is 'No auth required', which is about accessibility rather than tool selection.

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