VaultVision Hyperliquid Vault Research

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it compares rather than decides or acts, uses 'current vault records,' and restricts to 'the same timestamped fields.' This is sufficient context for a safe read-only operation.

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 two tight sentences. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the clarifying non-goal follows without redundancy. Every sentence 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 one-parameter, read-only tool with an existing output schema and safe annotations, the description covers the essential invocation context: what is compared, how many, and what it does not do. It could slightly improve by specifying the expected vault identifier format or time semantics, but nothing critical is missing for selecting and invoking it.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description directly compensates by explaining the vaults parameter's cardinality ('two to five') and its semantic type ('current vault records'). It still does not specify the exact string format (e.g., vault address vs. name), so it leaves a small gap, but for a single-parameter tool this is mostly adequate.

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 states a specific verb ('Compare'), a clear resource ('Hyperliquid vault records'), and an explicit scope ('two to five current vault records side by side'). It also disambiguates from sibling tools by stating it 'does not choose a winner or allocate capital,' making its purpose distinct from tools like rank_vaults.

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 clearly communicates the intended use case: side-by-side comparison of a bounded set of vaults. It adds non-goals ('does not choose a winner or allocate capital') to prevent mis-selection, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for ranking or allocation.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context by specifying the output scope and explicitly noting it avoids converting the model into investment advice, which is a useful behavioral boundary.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes meaning: the action, the object, the specific outputs, and the behavioral caveat.

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?

With output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the tool's purpose, scope, and an important caveat. The main gap is the lack of guidance on what the 'vault' parameter should contain, but the overall context is reasonably complete for a simple read-only 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description only says 'one vault,' giving minimal meaning to the 'vault' parameter. It does not compensate for the schema's lack of detail by explaining whether the parameter expects an ID, address, name, or other identifier.

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 names a specific verb ('Explain') and a precise resource ('one vault's current VaultVision risk score, component values, drawdown evidence, and data caveats'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rank_vaults or compare_vaults by focusing on a single vault's risk explanation.

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 when to use the tool: when a user wants an explanation of one vault's risk rather than ranking, comparison, or raw data. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or describe when not to use this tool over siblings like get_vault or compare_vaults.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond this: the result is 'current structured evidence' and includes a 'canonical URL', and the id uses a 'vault: or page:' prefix. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

One sentence delivers the action, target, identifier semantics, and return value without redundancy or filler. All information is relevant and front-loaded.

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, one-parameter fetch tool with an output schema and strong readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent what to pass, what to expect back, and the general nature of the result.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning to the lone 'id' parameter. It does so by specifying that the id is a 'vault: or page: identifier', which is important for constructing a valid call. It stops short of giving exact example formats, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 identifies the action ('Fetch'), the resource ('one VaultVision search result'), and the identifier form ('vault: or page: identifier'). It distinguishes itself from get_vault by explicitly saying 'search result', though it does not name the sibling directly.

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 a clear use case: use this tool when you already have a vault: or page: identifier and want the current structured evidence. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like search, but the condition is clear enough.

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

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

Annotations already declare the operation safe (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description only needs to add context. It adds 'current' record semantics and the 'when available' qualifier on deposit context, which informs the agent that some fields may be absent. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the action first and then lists the relevant metric categories compactly. It uses the qualifier 'when available' to avoid overpromising, with no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, this description is complete: it identifies the subject, the record type, the included metrics, and the optionality of deposit context. The agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Per the 0-parameter baseline, a 4 is appropriate; the description correctly focuses on the returned content rather than inputs.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Return the current VaultVision record for Hyperliquidity Provider (HLP)') and enumerates the metric groups included (TVL, performance, drawdown, risk, deposit context). This clearly distinguishes it from generic siblings like get_vault and search_vaults by naming the exact HLP subject.

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 scope is unmistakable: this tool is for HLP metrics, not general vault data, so the description communicates clear context for selection. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the specific resource makes the use case obvious.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: signals are rule-based and are monitoring context, not execution instructions. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the operation and resource, and the second provides an important interpretive caveat. Both sentences earn their 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?

The tool is simple, has no required parameters, has a rich output schema, and is backed by strong annotations. The main gap is parameter semantics, especially since_ts, but for a no-argument call the definition is sufficiently complete. The description needlessly omits only minor optional invocation 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention limit or since_ts at all. The parameter names offer some signal, but since_ts lacks units/format and limit's interaction with 'recent' is not clarified. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Return') and names a distinct resource: recent rule-based VaultVision vault signals, listing concrete examples like risk, entry, TVL, flow, or APR changes. This clearly separates it from sibling tools that fetch vaults, compare vaults, or rank vaults, even without naming them explicitly.

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: call this when you need recent vault alerts/signals. It also adds an interpretive guideline ('monitoring context, not execution instructions'), which tells the agent not to treat alerts as commands. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating it returns the 'latest available' record and enumerating the data fields, which helps the agent set expectations. It does not discuss failure modes, rate limits, or caching, but given the annotations, this is sufficient and adds value beyond the structured metadata.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Get the latest available VaultVision record') and follows with specific identifiers and data fields. Every word adds value, no fluff or redundancy.

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 retrieval tool with an output schema and safety annotations, this description is complete. It clarifies the input domain and output payload, and the output schema likely covers the return structure. There is no missing information an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema provides no description for the 'vault' parameter (schema coverage 0%). The description fully compensates by enumerating the four acceptable identifier types (vault ID, canonical slug, URL, or exact vault name). This is critical for the agent to know what format to pass. It completely resolves ambiguity.

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 states a precise purpose: retrieving the latest VaultVision record for a single vault. It lists the accepted identifiers (vault ID, canonical slug, URL, or exact vault name) and the data fields included (risk, drawdown, entry, TVL, deposit context). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_vaults (which search) and rank_vaults (which rank).

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 fetching one vault's data and specifies the allowed input formats (ID, slug, URL, exact name). It does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the scope is clear enough that an agent can infer the right context. A minor gap is the absence of explicit exclusions or conditions that would route to rank_vaults or compare_vaults.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the 'evidence-gated' nature and 'first-party model' provenance qualifier, which usefully frames the ranking's reliability limits beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the core action leads and the caveat trails. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists to document return values, and no parameters are required. However, the choice among ranking_type values (risk-adjusted vs verified vs estimated) is left unexplained, which is a genuine usability gap for an agent needing to select a ranking methodology.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for explaining parameters, yet it explains neither `limit` nor `ranking_type`. The enum values are semi-self-describing but the description never maps rank types to use cases. With zero schema coverage, the description must compensate and fails to.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and a precise resource ('VaultVision ranking snapshot') qualified by 'evidence-gated' and 'current'. The caveat about not presenting as guaranteed future performance adds fidelity. This is clearly distinct from siblings like get_vault (single vault) and compare_vaults (side-by-side comparison).

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 when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling alternative is named. The 'must not be presented as guaranteed future performance' caveat offers mild usage framing, but there is no selection logic distinguishing this from search_vaults or compare_vaults.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about data being 'current' and 'canonical,' but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination, rate limits, or how results are ordered. This is adequate given the annotations, but not exceptional.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states what is searched, and the second gives actionable routing guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple, has a small parameter set, output schema, and strong annotations, which reduces the burden on the description. Still, the description leaves a notable gap: it does not disambiguate from search_vaults, and it provides no parameter guidance despite zero schema descriptions. It is adequately useful but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the query and limit parameters. It does neither: there is no mention of query syntax, what constitutes a valid query, how limit behaves, or why limit is capped at 20. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 identifies the tool's action ('Search') and its scope ('current Hyperliquid vault records and canonical VaultVision research pages'), so an agent can tell it is a discovery tool. It also points toward fetch as a downstream step, but it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool search_vaults, which appears to overlap in purpose.

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 gives clear usage guidance: use this as a standard discovery tool before fetch when the entity is ambiguous. This explicitly establishes a condition and a preferred ordering. However, it does not mention when not to use it or how it compares to search_vaults, leaving that sibling distinction unresolved.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the nuance 'Returns evidence, not a recommendation,' which clarifies output intent but does not disclose other behaviors like pagination limits or data freshness. Given annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence packs the full capability set, and the second adds the critical output caveat. Information is front-loaded and 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?

With 8 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description covers the main filtering dimensions but omits details on default behavior (e.g., default sort is relevance, limit is 10) and how parameters interact. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description itself could be more explicit about search semantics for an agent to call it correctly without external hints.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the major filter dimensions (name, TVL, risk, drawdown, entry, deposit status) which map to most parameters, but does not explicitly map each one or explain defaults for sort_by and limit. It provides partial semantic value but leaves ambiguities for 8 parameters.

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 the verb (search/filter/sort), the resource (Hyperliquid vaults), and the specific attributes involved (TVL, risk, drawdown, etc.). It is distinct from vague phrasing, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like rank_vaults or compare_vaults, which limits full clarity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description does not mention alternatives like compare_vaults or rank_vaults, nor does it specify conditions for choosing this search over other tools. This leaves the agent to infer usage context.

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