waiaas

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It successfully indicates this is a read operation ('Get') and hints at data richness by mentioning 'leverage limits.' However, it omits critical behavioral details: it doesn't clarify if this is cached, rate-limited, requires specific permissions, or explain the return format beyond 'market list.'

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the verb ('Get'), specifies the domain ('Hyperliquid perpetual'), identifies the resource ('market list'), and adds value with specific metadata examples ('leverage limits') without verbosity.

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 zero parameters and low complexity, the description adequately covers the functional scope. Since no output schema exists, it reasonably summarizes return content ('market list with metadata'), though it could have expanded on what specific market attributes are returned beyond leverage limits.

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 input schema has zero parameters, which per the calibration guidelines establishes a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately requires no parameter clarification since the tool accepts no inputs.

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 specific action ('Get'), resource ('Hyperliquid perpetual market list'), and key content ('metadata (leverage limits, etc.)'). It effectively distinguishes this from siblings like 'waiaas_hl_get_spot_markets' (spot vs perpetual) and 'waiaas_hl_get_positions' (markets vs positions) through explicit domain terminology.

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 implicit usage context by specifying 'Hyperliquid perpetual,' which helps identify the correct venue/type versus siblings like 'waiaas_pm_get_markets' or 'waiaas_hl_get_spot_markets.' However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to call this (e.g., 'before placing orders') or when to use alternatives like 'waiaas_hl_get_market_detail' for specific market data.

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