derivatives.whale_position_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and meets it: it documents the success/failure return contract, states that risk_flags are fixed numeric thresholds rather than qualitative judgments, and reveals that the underlying API has no leaderboard or whale-ranking capability.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then packs usage constraints, args, and return contract into a scannable structure. Every sentence adds decision-relevant information with no redundant 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: input format, when/when-not to call, exact returned fields, and failure shape. Nothing important is missing.

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 only says 'address' is a required string, so the description is the only source of meaning. It defines the parameter as a Hyperliquid/EVM wallet address and specifies the expected 0x... format.

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 and resource: 'Audit a Hyperliquid wallet's open perpetual futures positions,' and lists the exact fields returned. It also clarifies the scope to any wallet and explicitly distinguishes the tool from address-discovery/ranking use.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: only when a specific Hyperliquid/EVM address is already known and current exposure needs auditing. It also tells the agent when not to use it (discovery/ranking) and explains the API limitation behind that exclusion.

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