List active Hyperliquid TWAP orders

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds that notional is estimated using live market references and clarifies that execution progress and unfilled quantity are not inferred, providing useful behavioral context.

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, and a second sentence clarifying limitations. No unnecessary 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?

While output schema exists, the lack of parameter documentation makes the tool difficult to use effectively. The agent cannot infer key details like what 'query' filters on or what 'hip3' market type means. Significant gaps for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 0%, yet the description provides no explanation of any of the 7 parameters (side, limit, query, offset, sort_by, market_type, min_estimated_notional_usd). The agent has no insight into parameter meanings beyond their names and default values.

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 lists active Hyperliquid TWAP schedules and estimates notional, distinct from sibling tools which cover snapshots, fees, positions, etc.

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 specifies the tool is for listing publicly visible active TWAPs, implying its use case. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but sibling tools are clearly different in function.

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