get_hl_user_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing auth requirements ('No auth') and a caching duration ('Cached 1 hr'), useful traits not present in structured fields. Return format is only partially touched on.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the metric list first, operational constraints last. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description sensibly enumerates the returned stats and notes auth and caching, which is most of what an agent needs. Minor gaps remain: no pagination, time-range, or formatting detail for the returned metrics.

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%, so the single userAddress parameter is already fully documented by the schema, including the managed-vs-control wallet distinction. The description's 'for an HL user' adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, 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) and resource (trading stats for an HL user) and enumerates the returned metrics: daily PnL, volumes, trade counts, win rates. An agent can tell what it delivers, though it never names a sibling (e.g. get_wallet_performance, get_hl_trade_history) it should be preferred over.

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. Cached 1 hr.' gives an operational precondition and freshness hint, implying the tool is a cheap, safe read. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance against the many overlapping stats/performance siblings.

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