APIbase

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

While annotations establish the read-only, idempotent nature of the operation, the description adds useful context that the response includes 'performance and TVL' data. However, it omits other behavioral details such as rate limits, caching behavior, or data freshness that would be valuable for financial data retrieval.

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 single-sentence description is efficiently front-loaded with the action verb and contains zero redundant words. Every word contributes meaningfully to understanding the tool's specific function and scope.

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 lookup tool with comprehensive safety annotations, the description adequately covers essential behavior by specifying the returned data categories (performance and TVL). While the absence of an output schema leaves some ambiguity about response structure, the description provides sufficient context for basic usage.

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 for the `vault_address` parameter, the schema fully documents the input requirements. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics or usage examples beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation 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 a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('vault details') and platform ('Hyperliquid'). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like `hyperliquid.account.positions` by targeting vaults rather than accounts, though it could explicitly clarify what distinguishes a vault from user accounts or markets.

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 alternative Hyperliquid tools such as `hyperliquid.account.summary` or `hyperliquid.markets.data`. It lacks prerequisites, sequencing information, or explicit conditions for selection.

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