hl_clearinghouse_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any potential side effects, authentication requirements, or data freshness. It simply lists the contents of the state without disclosing operational behavior.

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 a single, concise sentence with a colon-separated list of contents. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately front-loaded. However, it is under-specified, which slightly detracts from its structural completeness, but for conciseness alone it earns a high score.

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?

Given the tool has two parameters and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the tool's purpose beyond the name, does not describe parameters, and lacks context on what the state represents or when to use it. The output schema covers return values, but the description still leaves many gaps.

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 two parameters (dex and user) with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain what 'dex' or 'user' mean, nor how they affect the returned state. This is a significant gap because the description provides no parameter-level guidance.

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 clearly identifies the tool as retrieving perpetual clearinghouse state, listing key components (positions, margin summary, withdrawable). The term 'perpetual' distinguishes it from the sibling hl_spot_clearinghouse_state. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch', making it slightly less direct.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for perp state, nor does it reference sibling tools or specify conditions for use. The only clue is the word 'perpetual', which implicitly distinguishes it from spot, but this is not framed as usage guidance.

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