hl_ref_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only lookup, but it says nothing about required account context, authentication, or whether the address must be the caller's own. For a zero-annotation tool 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 tight sentence with the resource and key return fields front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terse parenthetical leaves little room for necessary context.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, naming the returned fields gives the agent a reasonable picture of the response. However, with no annotations and no parameter explanation, the definition stops short of being fully actionable.

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?

There is one parameter, userAddress, at 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains it — whether it is the referrer, the referred user, or a required authenticated address. The parenthetical (earned, eligibility, code) describes output fields, not the parameter.

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 ('HyperLiquid referral info') and enumerates the returned fields (earned, eligibility, code). It is clearly a read of referral state, distinct from the sibling hl_ref_claim, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 call this versus hl_ref_claim or hl_builder_referral, and no prerequisites or ordering hints. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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