Trader Profile

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 by enumerating the returned metrics, but it does not disclose details like time-horizon defaults, response shape, or any rate-limiting concerns. No contradiction exists.

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 compact and front-loaded: the action and target come first, followed by a clear list of returned fields, and ends with the practical use case. Every sentence earns its place 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 simple read-only lookup tool with complete parameter schemas and strong annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It enumerates the key return fields and the intended use case, which is especially valuable given there is no output schema. A small gap is that it does not clarify the time period or whether the profile is all-time versus a configurable window.

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 both parameters are already clearly documented in the schema: address is an Ethereum wallet address with a pattern, and useToonFormat has a default and explanation. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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') and resource ('full profile for any Hyperliquid trader by wallet address'), and lists detailed return fields, making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling trader-profile tools like pulse_trader_performance or pulse_trader_daily_stats, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It explicitly states the intended use case: 'Use this for due diligence on any wallet.' This gives clear context for when to call it. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the use-case framing is strong enough to guide selection.

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