One HIP-3 DEX: totals, markets, daily totals

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), so the description is free to add data semantics: today's daily row is flagged partial, market OI is two-sided and volume-sorted, and includeMarketDaily is large/off by default. Those are real behavioral traits an agent needs to interpret results correctly, though nothing is said about rate limits or failure modes.

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 returned payload, then the parameter hint, then the routing preference. No filler; the densest information (what you get back) comes first.

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 the return shape, and it does so concretely (totals, market list, daily rows) for a 7-parameter tool. Minor gaps remain: ordering/pagination behavior for the market list and what happens when `dex` matches nothing are unspecified.

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% and each parameter already carries a description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the `dex` alias mapping and the 'last N days' framing of `days`, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 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?

The description enumerates the exact payload: collateral, total volume/trades/traders/OI, per-market all-time volume and two-sided OI, plus dated daily-total rows. It carves out a scope ('one DEX') that distinguishes it from the aggregate hip3_overview/hip3_markets siblings, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Prefer this for one DEX's market list' states a clear selection condition and implies a multi-DEX alternative exists, which is useful routing guidance. It stops short of naming the alternative tool or stating when-not to use it (e.g. when comparing DEXes).

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