Hyperliquid Positions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the description's 'Get open positions' is consistent. The description adds no contradictory information and aligns well with annotations, though it doesn't provide additional behavioral context beyond what annotations already convey.

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, clear sentence of 8 words with no unnecessary information. It is concise and front-loaded with the essential purpose.

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 the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, clear annotations, and an output schema), the description is complete enough. It adequately conveys the tool's function and input requirements, relying on structured fields for additional details.

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 schema coverage is 100% and the description mentions 'for a user wallet', matching the parameter 'user' with its schema description. However, the description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 'Get open positions for a user wallet on Hyperliquid', specifying the verb (Get), resource (open positions), and context (user wallet, Hyperliquid). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'hyperliquid.account.summary' or 'hyperliquid.markets.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?

The description implies usage for retrieving open positions but does not explicitly state when to use it or when not to use alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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