Hyperliquid wallet

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), the description adds critical context: it reads the public ledger, no key/signature/send path, ensuring agents understand it is purely observational and safe. This fully satisfies the transparency requirement.

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?

The description is a single paragraph that front-loads the action and efficiently lists returned data. It is concise without being terse, though structured bullet points could improve readability slightly.

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?

The description comprehensively covers the tool's purpose, usage constraints, and behavioral traits given its low complexity and rich annotations. It lacks an explicit output schema description but lists returned fields sufficiently for agent understanding.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (address, limit). The description does not add extra meaning for parameters beyond listing what data is returned. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Look up what any public Hyperliquid address holds' and enumerates specific data returned (account value, margin, positions, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like hl_market or hyperevm_yields by focusing on wallet holdings.

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 explicitly states it works on any address and explains the read-only nature ('the server has no key, no signature and no send path'), implying when to use (lookup) and when not to (actions requiring write). However, it does not directly reference sibling tools as alternatives.

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