HyperEVM fees

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false. Description adds context: 'Read-only, public data, no API key' and explains the semantics of fees vs TVL. No contradictions.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Each sentence adds value: purpose, comparison, usage, and safety note.

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?

Given simple tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, description covers data scope and usage. No output schema, but return values are self-explanatory (fee lines). No mention of pagination or errors, but adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 covers both parameters fully (100% description coverage). Description adds minimal extra meaning: clarifies that omitting name yields ranked list. No additional syntax or constraints beyond 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?

Description clearly states the tool lists fees paid to protocols on Hyperliquid over three time periods, ranked. It distinguishes from sibling tools like hyperevm_yields by contrasting fees vs TVL, and the name parameter aligns with the resource 'protocols'.

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?

Provides clear usage: pass a protocol name for a single line, omit for ranked list. Mentions read-only, public data, no API key. Does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, but the contrast with TVL gives implicit guidance.

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