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

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (not read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds the real behavioral payload: which events fire alerts, that the first sight is a silent baseline, that it consumes a plan address quota, and the exact failure signals terminal_required / limit_reached. This is substantive disclosure beyond structured fields and consistent with the 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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct load: trigger, alert semantics, and quota/error behavior. The most decision-relevant clause (when to call) is front-loaded with zero filler.

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, the description still explains what a successful add produces (silent baseline, then alerts) and what the two failure outcomes mean, which is exactly what an agent needs to report back. Nothing material for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so both address and label are already documented, including the 0x + 40 hex format the description repeats. The description adds nothing about the optional label or defaults, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action (follow/track a Hyperliquid address for position alerts) and the trigger phrasing an agent will see. The Hyperliquid-address scope plus the position-change alerting behavior clearly distinguishes it from add_watchlist_symbol and create_alert_recipe in the sibling list.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use trigger ('when the user asks to follow, track or get alerts for a Hyperliquid address') and names the contrasting siblings implicitly via the lifecycle (list_tracked_addresses, remove_tracked_address). It does not state when-not to use it or a direct alternative, but the invocation context is unambiguous.

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