get_perp_clearinghouse_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is a 'Get' (implying read-only) and mentions the default behavior for missing user, but it does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, or output format. The added default behavior is useful but minimal.

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 appropriately short, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence. However, the phrasing is slightly awkward with a comma splice, but it remains concise and readable. Every clause contributes to the core behavior.

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 covers the main behavior and the default parameter case. However, it lacks context on return value structure, error handling, or whether any authentication is needed, which would be necessary for full agent autonomy. The complexity is low, so this is adequate but not complete.

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 describes the 'user' parameter, but the description adds meaningful context by explaining that omitting the parameter returns the wallet address's clearinghouse state. This adds semantic value beyond the schema's tautological description, earning a score above the 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 retrieves the clearinghouse state of a user, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('clearinghouse state'), and distinguishes by the tool name from the sibling get_spot_clearinghouse_state. However, it does not explicitly mention 'perp' in the description, relying on the tool name for differentiation.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_spot_clearinghouse_state or get_order_status. It only notes the fallback behavior when no user is provided, which is a parameter detail rather than usage guidance.

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