hyperliquid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Not geo-blocked', which is a useful constraint, but does not address other behavioral aspects such as rate limits, idempotency, or data freshness. The description mainly lists the returned data rather than behavioral traits.

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?

The description is short but contains a repeated sentence, which reduces conciseness. The inclusion of an example URL is useful and front-loaded. Overall, it could be more efficient by removing the repetition.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately lists the return data (funding, open interest, prices, premium, volume). This provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the output. However, lacking an output schema, it could be more precise about data types or format, but the list is clear enough.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context by listing the data fields returned for the symbol, but this is complimentary rather than essential. The schema already describes the parameter as a coin name, and the description's example (BTC) aligns with that. No additional constraints or format details are provided.

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 clearly states the tool provides Hyperliquid perpetual context data including funding, open interest, prices, premium, and volume. It specifies the resource (Hyperliquid) and the data fields, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like funding_oi, but the focus on Hyperliquid exchange provides some differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as funding_oi or price. The description only states what the tool does without any context on preferred use cases or exclusions. The example URL hints at usage but does not provide decision-making criteria.

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