Analyze a Hyperliquid wallet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying that no authentication is needed and that the tool reads public data. This reinforces the non-destructive, public nature of the operation.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key purpose and then lists what data is included. No extraneous words.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown), the description effectively covers purpose, parameters, and data scope. It does not mention rate limits or pagination, but these are minor gaps for a read-only wallet state tool.

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?

With schema description coverage at 50% (only 'address' has a schema description), the tool's description compensates by explaining the purpose of the 'recent_fill_limit' parameter implicitly (through listing 'recent fills' in the output) and clarifying that the 'address' must be public and on Hyperliquid. This adds meaning 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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and clearly identifies the resource (public main-account state for a Hyperliquid address). It lists the exact data components (perpetual positions, spot balances, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on market snapshots, fees, or top holders.

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 explicitly states this is a read-only operation requiring no private key or wallet connection, which guides appropriate use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool (e.g., for historical data) or suggest alternative sibling tools for other tasks.

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