Hyperliquid positions of an address

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real domain nuance — the Hyperliquid-reported liq price is returned alongside a locally computed one, and computedLiq is null for cross-margin because margin depends on the whole account. That explains an otherwise confusing null and is genuine added context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence starting with the resource and scope, then the returned fields. It is dense but every clause carries information; it could be split into two sentences for readability but nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by listing the returned fields (side, size, entry, mark, value, leverage, margin mode, margin, uPnL, liq prices). Empty-position behavior and any limit on position count are the only gaps for a single-address read tool.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema coverage, where the schema already documents the 0x… 42-character format, so baseline 3 applies. The description only adds that the address must be 'public', a marginal note beyond the 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Open perp positions of ... address') and enumerates the exact fields returned, which is far beyond a tautology. It doesn't reference a sibling tool by name, so the agent must infer that this reads positions while liq_price/liquidation_map serve other purposes.

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?

'of any public Hyperliquid address' implies an unauthenticated lookup for a single account, but there is no explicit when-to-use clause, no exclusions, and no pointer to the close siblings (liq_price, liquidation_map). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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