get_trader_leverage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not clarify whether 'active leverage' refers to cross or isolated margin mode, whether it reflects per-asset or per-position settings, what happens if the trader has no position, or the response shape. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It names the verb, resource, subject, scope, and platform with zero waste.

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?

Adequate for a simple two-parameter read query, but with no annotations, no output schema, and no return-value description, an agent cannot predict the response shape or edge-case behavior. The description is minimal viable coverage for a lookup tool.

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 schema already documents both required parameters (coin as 'Asset symbol', traderWallet as 'Trader wallet address'). The description adds the concept that these scope the query but no format or syntax details beyond the schema. Baseline 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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('active leverage setting'), and scopes it precisely to a trader and coin on HyperLiquid. Distinct from siblings like set_leverage (mutation) and get_perp_positions (position data) without needing their schemas.

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 implies when to use it (retrieving active leverage for a given trader/coin), but offers no explicit when-not guidance or named alternatives such as get_perp_positions or get_account_state. Usage is inferable but not delimited.

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