get_futures_account

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description layers on real behavioral context: a tier gate, the userRole delegation requirement, the caveat that daily/weekly values are loss-pressure metrics rather than period returns, and fail-closed behavior on history ambiguity. These are exactly the operational facts an agent cannot get from annotations.

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 bracketed prefix front-loads internal API paths (/api/v1/agent/futures/account-state, authority path) that do not help an agent select or invoke the tool, even though the tier gate portion is useful. The prose that follows is dense and mostly earns its place, but the header is clutter ahead of the substance.

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 and 0% parameter coverage, the description covers both parameters, the auth/delegation requirements, and metric caveats. It never indicates what the response contains beyond naming the inspected quantities, which is a minor remaining gap for a read 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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: agentAddress is the API signer, accountAddress is the master/subaccount owning the equity, with the omission rule stated. Only the address format (0x pattern) is left to the schema.

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 second sentence gives a specific verb ('Inspect') and a well-scoped resource set (Hyperliquid equity, margin, positions, drawdown state), which distinguishes it from generic siblings like get_portfolio_summary or get_position_health. The bracketed capability/API prefix adds noise but does not obscure the purpose.

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?

It states prerequisites (available_with_tier_gate; tier pioneer_plus_or_x402) and a concrete conditional rule for the optional parameter ('omit only for a direct signer'), plus the delegation-verification requirement. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling or an explicit when-not-to-use, so it is clear context without routing.

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