Follow a Hyperliquid address for position alerts (writes to your account)

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: every later position change (opened/closed/increased/reduced/flipped) is pushed to the user's channels, the first sight is a silent baseline, and the address counts against the plan's limit. The named failure responses (terminal_required, limit_reached) disclose error behavior the annotations cannot express.

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-loads the invocation trigger in the first clause, then layers behavior, baseline semantics, and failure modes. Dense but every clause (including the format hint and error codes) earns its place; nothing is redundant with the title.

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 two-parameter write tool with no output schema, the definition covers trigger, push behavior, limit accounting, and failure codes. It omits what a successful response returns (e.g., an identifier) and any auth requirements implied by 'writes to your account,' leaving a small gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so both address and label are already documented in the schema. The description repeats the address format but says nothing about the optional label parameter, so it adds only marginal value. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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+resource: follow/track a Hyperliquid address to receive position alerts. The parenthetical format spec (0x + 40 hex) and the sibling list (add_watchlist_symbol, create_alert_recipe) make it unambiguous what this tool does versus adjacent alert tools.

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?

"Call this when the user asks to follow, track or get alerts for a Hyperliquid address" gives a clear invocation trigger, and the terminal_required/limit_reached conditions tell the agent when the call will fail. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives (e.g., use add_watchlist_symbol for symbols) or the remove counterpart, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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