hl_account_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does most of it: it enumerates the four readiness signals returned, effectively substituting for a missing output schema, and frames the tool as a diagnostic read. It stops short of stating permissions, auth prerequisites, or that it has no side effects.

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, both earning their place. The returned signals are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the usage rationale without padding.

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?

No parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must convey both scope and return content, which it does by listing the four checks. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the lack of input is appropriate for a self-account status check. Baseline 4 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 resource (this agent's own account) and enumerates exactly what is checked: Hyperliquid enabled, Trading Key present, approval still honoured, approval expiry. The 'own account' scoping cleanly separates it from siblings like hl_account or hl_market_data.

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 condition for use: call it to explain WHY an order might be refused rather than waiting for the refusal. It does not name a sibling as the alternative or state when not to use it, but the intended context is unambiguous.

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