get_perp_positions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful operational fact ('No auth required'), which lowers the barrier to calling it. It stops short of saying what an empty result means or whether closed positions are excluded over time.

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 core operation, and every clause carries information the agent can act on.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. A note that the coin filter narrows results would have made it complete, since a reader of the description alone would not know filtering is possible.

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%: both walletAddress and the optional coin filter are documented in the schema, including an example ('BTC'). The description adds nothing about them, 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 ('open perpetual positions'), scope ('for a wallet') and venue ('HyperLiquid'). It does not explicitly differentiate from close-adjacent siblings like gdex_positions or get_hl_clearinghouse_state, but the read-only 'open positions for a wallet' framing is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as gdex_positions, get_hl_clearinghouse_state, or get_account_state. Usage is only inferable from the wording 'for a wallet'.

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