get_spot_clearinghouse_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses a key default behavior: if no user is provided, the clearinghouse state of the wallet address is returned. However, it does not explain what the clearinghouse state includes, whether it is read-only, or any rate limits, leaving some gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action and the key conditional behavior without unnecessary words. It is concise and well-structured.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It explains the default user behavior but does not describe the structure or content of the returned 'clearinghouse state', which could be important for an agent to use the tool effectively. The presence of a similar sibling tool also suggests a bit more explicit differentiation would improve completeness.

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 (100% coverage), but the tool description adds meaningful context by clarifying the optional behavior: when the parameter is omitted, the wallet address's state is returned. This goes beyond the schema's bare description and helps the agent understand the parameter's optionality and default behavior.

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 gets the clearinghouse state of a user on Hyperliquid. The tool name includes 'spot' to differentiate from the sibling 'get_perp_clearinghouse_state', but the description itself uses the generic phrase 'clearinghouse state' and does not explicitly mention 'spot', so it partially relies on the name for disambiguation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_perp_clearinghouse_state. The description does not provide context about distinguishing spot from perp clearinghouse state or mention any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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