HIP-3 perp DEXs overview & market share

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds data-shape semantics ('OI is two-sided (long + short)') and the dexAliases mapping, but says nothing about pagination, freshness, rate limits, or auth needs. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is an adequate but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

A single dense sentence followed by two short clarifiers, with the headline purpose front-loaded and the routing hint at the end. Efficient, though the parenthetical enumeration is long.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so thoroughly by listing every field group returned. What remains missing is any behavioral or timing context, but for a read-only aggregate endpoint this is close to complete.

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 100% for the single `fields` parameter, so the schema fully documents projection paths and the _fieldsNotFound behavior. The description never mentions the fields parameter, so baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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 states a specific resource and enumerates exactly what the overview contains (all-time/30d/90d volume, trades, traders, OI, per-DEX and per-collateral market share, builder-routed share, dexAliases). It signals scope ('DEX-level totals and share') but does not name a sibling tool to contrast against, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 closing line 'Prefer this for DEX-level totals and share' gives a clear selection condition against the per-market/per-day siblings. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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