hl_ref_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the shape of the returned info (earned, eligibility, code), but says nothing about auth requirements, freshness, or whether data is cached. Adequate but not rich.

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?

One compact sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. It could be marginally improved but wastes nothing.

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?

With no output schema, the field enumeration (earned, eligibility, code) usefully hints at the return payload, but the undocumented parameter and absence of usage context leave gaps for a tool that depends on a user address.

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?

The single required parameter userAddress has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not compensate by explaining that the referral info is scoped to a user address. The reader must infer the link between the parameter and the result.

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?

Specific verb 'Get' plus a well-scoped resource 'HyperLiquid referral info', with the returned fields (earned, eligibility, code) enumerated. It is clearly a read of referral state, distinct in intent from the mutation sibling hl_ref_claim, though the description 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 when-to-use guidance is given. The description does not explain that this should be called before hl_ref_claim, nor does it mention any prerequisites or alternatives. Usage is only inferable from the verb.

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