get_mark_price

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 by structured data. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — no authentication is needed — which the annotations do not encode. It says nothing about rate limits, staleness of the mark price, or behavior for unknown symbols.

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, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the auth note trailing. Every clause carries information.

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 simple, annotation-covered read with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose and auth. Minor gaps remain — whether the price is perp vs spot and what happens on an invalid symbol — but nothing essential is missing.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'coin' with an example ('BTC', 'ETH'). The description adds no format, casing, or validity constraints beyond that, so the 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 ('current mark price for a HyperLiquid asset'), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related sibling get_all_mid_prices (singular vs bulk), leaving that inference to the agent.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives, even though get_all_mid_prices and get_native_prices sit adjacent and overlap in intent. The only usage-adjacent signal is 'No auth required', which speaks to prerequisites 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.