hl_active_asset_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only lists data fields and indicates official HTTP info, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for full behavioral transparency.

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?

The description is concise at two sentences, front-loaded with the key data points, and contains no unnecessary words. The note about HTTP vs WS access adds contextual value, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

An output schema exists and the tool has only two parameters, but the description omits usage context, such as when to prefer this endpoint over siblings, any caveats, or behavior on missing data. It conveys the core purpose but leaves gaps in situational completeness, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It indicates 'per-user per-coin', which clarifies how the 'user' and 'coin' parameters combine to identify the data, but it does not add types, formats, or examples beyond the schema's existing names and types. The added meaning is minimal but partially fills the gap.

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 the tool provides per-user per-coin leverage, max trade sizes, and available-to-trade data, with the identifier activeAssetData. It clearly identifies the resource and specific data fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools by its unique attributes, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch'.

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 offers no direct guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Official HTTP Info; SDK exposes mainly via WS', which hints at access mode, but does not specify circumstances, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without naming alternatives or use cases, it fails to inform tool selection.

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