waiaas

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 offers only minimal information. While 'List' implies a read operation, the description fails to disclose what data structure is returned, whether the operation is idempotent, rate limits, or error conditions (e.g., what happens if the wallet has no sub-accounts). The auto-resolution behavior mentioned in the parameter schema is not acknowledged in the main description.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It leads with the verb, follows with the specific resource, and ends with the qualifying scope. Given the tool's simplicity (single optional parameter), this length is appropriate and 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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately identifies the operation but leaves gaps regarding the return structure and the relationship between sub-accounts and the main Hyperliquid account. Given the presence of numerous similar waiaas_hl_* siblings, additional context about Hyperliquid's account architecture would improve completeness, though the basic identification is sufficient for a simple list operation.

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 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'for a wallet' which aligns with the wallet_id parameter, but adds no additional semantic context about format, constraints, or the auto-resolution behavior beyond what the schema already provides. The schema fully documents the single optional parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('Hyperliquid sub-accounts') and scope ('for a wallet'). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like waiaas_hl_get_sub_positions (which retrieves positions, not the account list) and waiaas_hl_get_account_state (which retrieves state data). However, it lacks explicit differentiation from the account_state tool which could confuse agents about when to use sub-account listing versus main account state retrieval.

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, prerequisites (like requiring a connected wallet), or when sub-accounts are relevant versus the main Hyperliquid account. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions mentioned.

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