APIbase

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the qualifier 'open' implying current/active positions rather than historical, but does not disclose return format, pagination, error cases, or data freshness.

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, efficient sentence of nine words with no redundancy. The most critical information (action and resource) appears at the beginning.

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 query tool with complete schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, given the lack of output schema, it could improve by specifying what constitutes a 'position' (e.g., perpetual futures, spot) or the expected return structure.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents the 'user' parameter as 'User wallet address (0x...)'. The description mentions 'user wallet' which aligns with but does not extend beyond the schema documentation, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 specific verb 'Get' and resource 'open positions' with clear scope 'for a user wallet on Hyperliquid'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'hyperliquid.account.summary', leaving ambiguity about when to use positions vs summary.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'account.summary' or 'markets.data'. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or exclusion criteria mentioned.

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