APIbase

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety profile. The description adds valuable context that this is for 'perpetual pairs' (specific instrument type) and 'L2' depth (full order book, not L1/top-of-book), but omits rate limits, pagination behavior, or return structure details.

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 zero waste. Front-loaded with action verb 'Get', immediately followed by specific resource and domain constraints. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 flat parameters, no nested objects) and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. Minor gap: no output schema exists, and the description could briefly mention the return contains bids/asks arrays, though 'order book depth' implies this sufficiently.

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%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (coin, n_sig_figs, mantissa). The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, which is appropriate given the complete schema coverage.

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 uses specific verb 'Get' with clear resource 'L2 order book depth' and scope 'perpetual pair on Hyperliquid'. The 'L2' and 'perpetual pair' qualifiers effectively distinguish this from sibling tools like hyperliquid.markets.klines (candlesticks) and hyperliquid.markets.data (general ticker info).

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative comparisons are provided. However, the specificity of 'L2 order book depth' provides implied usage context for agents seeking depth-of-market data versus price history or account data.

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