get_all_mids

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states a read-only 'get' action, but does not disclose response format, data freshness, pagination, or any potential side effects. The description is minimal and adds little beyond the tool's name.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It perfectly front-loads the action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The tool is simple (no params, no output schema), and the description fully conveys the tool's purpose. While it doesn't detail the return structure, the simplicity of the operation makes that a minor gap. The description adequately covers what an agent needs to know for selection.

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 tool has zero parameters, making schema coverage 100% by default. The description's phrase 'for all coins' matches the lack of filtering parameters, so no additional parameter explanation is needed. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('mid prices for all coins on Hyperliquid'), making the purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_l2_book or get_candle_snapshot by focusing on mid prices across all coins.

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 a clear use case—fetching mid prices for all coins—but does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives like get_l2_book or get_spot_meta. It provides context but no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance.

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