Wallet overview: balance, open positions, PnL record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: it discloses the full return surface (positions, spot balances, PnL/win-rate record) and explains the includeHip3 opt-in and its default-off behavior, which affects the result set in a non-obvious way. Missing only operational context such as invalid-address handling or rate limits.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the capability, then the use case, then the flag. The long parenthetical field list is justified because there is no output schema, but it makes the first sentence quite dense. No filler sentences.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so thoroughly, including aggregate metrics like win rate and human score. Combined with annotations covering the read-only/open-world profile, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly; only edge-case behavior and response shape beyond field names are unstated.

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 both parameters are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description adds concrete meaning beyond the schema by giving an example HIP-3 ticker ('xyz:TSLA') and reinforcing that address can be 'any Hyperliquid wallet', which clarifies the domain of the pattern-constrained string.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource phrase ('One-call profile of any Hyperliquid wallet') and then enumerates exactly what the profile contains: account value, perp positions with side/size/entry/liquidation/leverage/uPnL, spot balances, and a realized trading record. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like hydromancer_wallet_trades or hydromancer_wallet_open_orders, which are narrower slices of the same 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?

It explicitly says 'Use this first' and gives two concrete example questions ('what is this wallet holding?' / 'is this trader any good?'), which is a strong routing signal. It does not, however, name an alternative or state exclusions (e.g. 'use hydromancer_wallet_trades for the full trade list'), so the when-not guidance is absent.

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