Tracker view of an address

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: positions are sorted by closest liquidation, an alert threshold produces flags, and replan projects slices beyond today's liquidation price — the 'same JSON as the tracker-view CLI' line usefully signals output stability. It does not mention rate limits or failure modes for an invalid/empty address.

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 leads with the core deliverable and then enumerates the fields, with the optional replan behavior placed last where it belongs. The parenthetical field list is dense but each item is informative; no sentence is filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return shape — and it does, naming the fields and ordering of positions plus the flag and replan additions. What remains uncovered is minor: whether spot and perp positions are both included, how 'distance' is expressed, and behavior when the address has no positions.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented with patterns and units, making 3 the baseline. The description does add a little for replan ('isolated slices placed beyond today's liquidation price'), clarifying what 'band of slices' means, but it does not clarify that threshold is a USD value, which the schema states but the description only loosely echoes as 'above your alert threshold'.

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?

It names a specific resource (a Hyperliquid address's open positions) and enumerates exactly what is returned — side, size, value, leverage, entry/mark/liq price, distance, uPnL — plus flagging and optional re-planning. The purpose is unmistakable. It stops short of a 5 because it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like hl_positions or liquidation_map, which plausibly return overlapping position/liquidation data.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'what public trackers see' and the optional replan flag suggest a monitoring/triage use case, and the required threshold implies it is meant for alert-style screening. There is no explicit when-to-use versus hl_positions, liquidation_map, or liq_price, and no statement of when the replan variant should be chosen over plan_ladder.

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