Global Stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds useful context about the data fields and coverage period, but does not disclose output structure, pagination, or any other behavioral details beyond what annotations imply.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads what the tool returns, and the second provides a clear use case. 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?

This is a simple tool with one optional, well-documented parameter and rich safety annotations. The description covers the data returned and the intended use case, which is fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. No output schema exists, but the description gives enough hint about the response contents.

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%, and the single optional parameter useToonFormat is fully documented in the schema with its default and effect. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed given the schema's completeness, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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') with a clear resource ('global Hyperliquid trading statistics') and enumerates the exact metrics returned: total traders, trades, volume, PnL, and data coverage period. It is clear and informative, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like pulse_market_overview or pulse_active_traders.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to understand the overall scale of the market.' This gives clear intent but does not mention exclusions or alternatives, so it lacks the when-not-to-use guidance that would make it a 5.

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