APIbase

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

Annotations cover safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent) and external data source (openWorld). The description adds domain-specific context about 'margin details' but does not disclose rate limits, caching behavior, or error conditions for invalid wallet addresses.

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 with no waste. Front-loaded with action verb 'Get', followed by specific data types and scope. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only lookup with complete schema and rich annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the return domain (summary and margin details) despite lacking an output schema. Could be strengthened by contrasting with the positions sibling tool.

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 parameter 'user' is fully documented in the schema as 'User wallet address (0x...)'. The description mentions 'user wallet' which aligns with the parameter but does not add syntax details, validation rules, or format guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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' with clear resources 'account summary and margin details' and scope 'for a user wallet on Hyperliquid'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling 'hyperliquid.account.positions' by specifying summary/margin data rather than position 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 through the specific data types mentioned (summary and margin details), allowing inference that this tool retrieves account overview data while 'account.positions' retrieves position-specific data. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives.

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