hl_info_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the raw nature, the mapping of request_type to JSON type, the merging of payload, and error behavior. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but given it's a read-only info endpoint with an output schema, the disclosure is reasonably complete.

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: states what it is, provides a clear example, and gives a critical warning. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important qualifier ('Advanced') is front-loaded.

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?

For an advanced raw endpoint with an output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's mechanism and constraints. It could be improved by explicitly directing users to sibling tools for standard requests, but the example and error warning make it sufficiently complete for its niche role.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that request_type maps to the JSON type field and payload is a JSON object merged in, with a concrete example. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 states the tool is a raw POST to /info, with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from the many specific wrappers by being 'Advanced: raw POST /info'.

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 implies advanced usage for documented Hyperliquid API types, with a warning about invalid types, but does not explicitly state when to use this raw tool versus the dedicated sibling hl_* tools.

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