hyperliquid_one_click_onboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally; the description's contribution is the L1 scope boundary plus the implication that this is a planning step. It does not say whether execution ever occurs, what the plan contains, or any auth/rate-limit behavior.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the supported destinations front-loaded and the scope caveat second. Nothing repeats the name or wastes tokens.

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 six-parameter, open-world, read-only planning tool with no output schema, the description is thin: it never says what a 'plan' returns (routes, quotes, fees) or that omitting userAddress yields a non-executable preview. The schema covers inputs, but the output/behavior side of a planning tool is left for the agent to guess.

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 all six parameters (including the targetMode enum and the userAddress preview caveat) are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the two destinations and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline 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 verb ('Plan') and resource (HyperEVM HYPE or Arbitrum USDC funding), and the second sentence scopes out L1 deposits. It is clear what the tool produces (a funding plan), though it does not name a sibling alternative the way the strongest definitions do.

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 exclusion 'L1 deposits remain a separate action' gives one useful when-not boundary, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_cross_chain_bridge_quote or the other onboarding tool. Usage is implied by the tool name and funding destinations rather than stated.

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