Hyperliquid whale tracker: top-300 accounts, long vs short, positions, changes

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and open-world, and the description adds useful behavioral detail beyond those hints: the board is live, scanned every 5 minutes, contains addresses only, and event data is capped at the last 200 changes. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with before-call guidance followed by return details. The intent list is slightly long but each item maps to a real user query, and there is no filler or repeated boilerplate.

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 correctly explains what is returned and its limitations: top-300 board, addresses only, 5-minute scan cadence, and last 200 events. Given only two optional, schema-documented parameters, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 the schema already documents both the coin and events parameters. The description echoes that events means the last 200 position changes but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond 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 description opens with explicit call conditions and names the concrete deliverable: a live board of the 300 largest Hyperliquid accounts by equity, plus up to 200 position-change events. This is a specific verb-resource pairing that clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from nearby whale/market 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?

The description gives explicit trigger phrases: asking what Hyperliquid whales are doing, whether they are net long/short a coin, largest open positions with liquidation prices, or recently opened/closed/flipped positions. It does not, however, state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as get_whale_tape.

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