Hyperliquid gossip-network peers

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), lowering the bar, but the description adds real context: crawl size (~600 nodes), the default response shape, and that nodes/edges/all are paged. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but for a read-only crawl this is solid 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?

It is front-loaded with the resource and information-dense with little filler. The parenthetical packing makes it slightly run-on, but every clause carries usable detail.

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 return-value burden and does so reasonably by describing the default sections and node fields. Given 9 optional params and open-world data, an agent has enough to call it, though pagination mechanics remain 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% so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by documenting what the section values yield (nodes default 50; all = nodes 30, edges 100) and listing the node fields (IP id, role, operator, state, tier, hops, parent, feeders, geo, ASN), helping the agent choose filters.

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 names the specific resource (the /peers gossip-network crawl, ~600 nodes) so an agent immediately knows it returns peer/network topology rather than address or revenue data. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast against siblings, which is fine since no sibling overlaps this domain.

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 explains the default output (meta, footprint, sentries) and that nodes/edges/all are paged, which guides section selection. However, it gives no when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance or explicit alternatives, leaving usage implied rather than stated.

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