List top position holders in a Hyperliquid market

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint): it notes that rankings are 'cohort-relative' and that the index 'retains only the published top positions per market'. This helps the agent understand limitations.

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 the core purpose, no fluff or redundant information.

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 tool with 7 parameters and limited schema descriptions, the description covers the core function adequately but lacks details on filtering and sorting options. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but more parameter context would improve completeness.

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 only 14% (only 'market' has a description). The description does not describe any parameters, failing to compensate for the low coverage. Parameters like side, limit, offset, and sort_by are left to be inferred from their names.

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 ('List') and resource ('largest current positions'), scoped to 'one canonical market inside Market Depth Lab's monitored public-address cohort'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_active_hyperliquid_twaps or hyperliquid_list_funding_rates.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The usage is implied by the name and description, but no exclusions or comparative advice is provided.

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