get_perp_positions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that no auth is required, but says nothing about read-only safety, pagination, rate limits, or what 'open' excludes (e.g. cross vs isolated).

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 padding, with the core purpose front-loaded and the auth note trailing. Nothing to trim.

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 two-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers the essential who/what but omits the shape of the result and any scoping detail on what counts as an open position. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 both walletAddress and the optional coin filter are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or filtering semantics beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the baseline.

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'), and scope ('for a wallet on HyperLiquid'), which is enough to identify the operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as get_hl_clearinghouse_state or get_account_state, which likely also surface position data.

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 guidance on when to choose this over get_hl_clearinghouse_state, get_account_state, or get_hl_open_orders. The only usage-adjacent statement is 'No auth required,' which is a precondition, not a when-to-use rule.

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