hl_meta_and_asset_ctxs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only lists content categories and does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, has rate limits, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a data-access tool.

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 clear sentence, and the parenthetical alias (metaAndAssetCtxs) adds useful endpoint identification without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core output categories (meta, mark, oracle, funding, OI) sufficiently. It could elaborate on what 'meta' encompasses or explicitly state read-only usage, but the output schema likely fills those 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 tool has zero parameters, so per the baseline, the description does not need to document parameter semantics. It correctly avoids fabricating parameter details.

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 identifies the resource as perp meta plus per-asset context and specifies the exact fields (mark/oracle/funding/OI), which is specific enough to distinguish from the spot sibling. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'retrieve', so it's not maximally directive.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hl_meta or hl_spot_meta_and_asset_ctxs. The description only states what the tool returns, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case from the name and context.

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