get_mark_price

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real value by stating 'No auth required', a behavioral trait not derivable from the schema. However, it omits return format (units/fields of the mark price), error behavior for invalid symbols, and any rate-limit notes.

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

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 trivial single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and the auth precondition. The main omission is what the return value looks like (a numeric price), which an agent could reasonably want confirmed.

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%: the single 'coin' parameter is documented in-schema with examples ('BTC', 'ETH'). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is 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+resource ('Get the current mark price') and scopes it to a 'HyperLiquid asset', so the operation is unambiguous. It does not name the sibling get_all_mid_prices, which returns all prices, so the agent must infer the single-vs-all distinction rather than being told it.

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?

The description offers no when-to-use guidance and never contrasts itself with alternatives such as get_all_mid_prices. The only contextual hint is 'No auth required', which is a precondition, not a selection rule.

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