hl_user_vault_equities

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe any edge cases, response format, or limitations. It only states the data content, providing no 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 text is very short, but this is under-specification rather than meaningful conciseness. It is a noun phrase rather than a complete, structured description. It does not fulfill the basic expected format of a tool description.

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?

Despite having a single parameter and an output schema, the description does not explain what the response contains, such as a list of vaults with equity values. It is incomplete even for a simple lookup tool, lacking any context about the returned data or usage constraints.

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 single 'user' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. The description fails to clarify what format or address is expected, leaving the agent without necessary parameter semantics.

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 'User's equity across Hyperliquid vaults' clearly identifies the tool's resource (vault equities) and scope (a user). It is specific enough to distinguish it from generic portfolio or clearinghouse tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves'.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given many sibling tools relate to user data, the description should indicate, for example, that this is for vault-specific equity rather than overall portfolio or clearinghouse state.

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