get_all_mids

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavior itself. It explains what data is returned (mid prices) and the optional filtering, but it doesn't disclose response format, potential errors, or any limitations beyond that. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not thorough.

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?

The description is extremely concise: three short sentences that communicate the core function, optional filtering, and performance trait. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it returns, how to filter, and a hint about speed. It lacks explicit details on response structure or edge cases, but these are likely inferable for a price-checking API. Overall, it's nearly complete for its simplicity.

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 schema already provides a clear description for the 'coins' parameter (comma-separated symbols, empty means all markets). The tool description repeats this but adds a concrete example ('BTC,ETH,SOL'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds marginal value, keeping it at 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns current mid prices for all Hyperliquid markets, which is a specific resource and action. It also differentiates from siblings like get_perp_markets or get_market by emphasizing the 'mid price' focus and broad market coverage.

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 provides clear context for use: 'Fast way to check live prices' and optional filtering by coins. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the purpose is well-scoped and the filtering guidance is useful.

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