compare_wallets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It describes the action and output metrics but does not disclose error handling, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid addresses. Minimal but adequate for a straightforward read operation.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key information: action, resource, count range, and specific metrics. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it does, what metrics are compared. It lacks detail on return format or edge cases, but is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose.

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% (addresses parameter has a clear description). The tool description adds the list of comparison metrics, which provides extra context beyond the schema. However, it does not clarify address format or provide additional guidance on parameter usage, limiting its added value.

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 'Compare' with resource 'Hyperliquid wallets' and lists exact metrics (account value, 30d PnL, win rate, avg ROI, top position). This clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_pnl_summary or get_positions that handle single wallets.

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 states the tool compares 2-5 wallets side-by-side, implying use for multi-wallet comparison. While it does not explicitly exclude single-wallet use or mention alternatives, the context combined with sibling tool names makes the usage scenario sufficiently clear.

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