verify_delegation

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's added value is the tier gate (pioneer_plus) and backing endpoints, plus the explicit statement that verification grants no bypass of downstream gates — useful context an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the capability and tier metadata, then a single scoping sentence and a gating caveat. The bracketed metadata block is slightly noisy but does carry real, non-redundant information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should say what a successful verification yields (boolean, status object, error shapes) — it does not. Combined with undocumented parameters, gaps remain despite solid coverage of access and gating semantics.

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% and all three parameters are required, yet the description never explains the distinction between agentAddress, apiWalletAddress, and ownerAddress. The agent is left to guess which address plays which role in the delegation triangle.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: verify Hyperliquid API wallet delegation, scoped to guarded venue-order workflows. That distinguishes it from adjacent siblings like request_execution_delegation or register_execution_delegation, though it never names them explicitly.

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 phrase 'for guarded venue-order workflows' implies the triggering context, and 'does not bypass live status, research, risk, or signature gates' sets a boundary. However, it never says which sibling to use instead (e.g., get_execution_authority vs request_execution_delegation), so the agent must infer routing.

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