hl_enable_trading

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the auth inputs (apiKey, control walletAddress, sessionPrivateKey) and the one-time prerequisite nature, which is useful. However it omits what state changes on the wallet, whether the operation is reversible/idempotent, and what happens on failure.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and prerequisite, then the parameter mechanics. No filler; every clause adds decision-relevant 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 an auth/setup tool with four optional params, no output schema, and sparse schema docs, the description covers purpose, prerequisite ordering, auth inputs, and the computedData alternative. Only failure/reversibility behavior is left unaddressed.

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 coverage is only 25% (only walletAddress documented), so the description must compensate. It names all four parameters and, crucially, explains the two input paths: the SDK builds the payload from apiKey/walletAddress/sessionPrivateKey, while a pre-built computedData is also accepted. That relationship is not in the schema.

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 ('Enable HL trading for a managed wallet') and adds its prerequisite role ('one-time, required before outcome/HIP-3 orders'), which meaningfully separates it from the order-placement siblings. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative, but the purpose 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?

Gives clear ordering context ('one-time, required before outcome/HIP-3 orders'), telling the agent when this call must fire relative to trading operations. No explicit when-not guidance or alternatives are named, but the prerequisite framing is strong usage direction.

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