get_perp_markets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses read-only behavior implicitly through 'Overview' and 'get', and mentions sort options. However, it does not describe the response format (e.g., array of objects) or any potential behaviors like pagination, rate limits, or default sorting (though schema covers default). This is 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?

The description is concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then list key details (fields and sort options). Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 description should convey what is returned. It lists the key market metrics, which effectively describes the output fields. However, it does not explicitly state the return type (e.g., array of market objects) or clarify units (e.g., funding rate annualized). This is a minor gap for an otherwise simple 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% for both parameters, with clear descriptions for 'sort' (ranking metric, default 'volume') and 'limit' (how many to return, default 20). The description only restates the sort options and does not add new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 this tool provides an overview of all Hyperliquid perpetual markets and enumerates the specific metrics included (mark price, 24h change, volume, open interest, funding rate, max leverage). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_spot_markets and get_market by specifying 'perpetual markets' and 'all' markets.

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 usage for getting a broad market overview but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_market for a single market or get_funding_history for funding history. No explicit 'when to use' or exclusions are given, leaving the context to be inferred.

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