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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds authentication requirements, key-hash prefix privacy note, and lists reported data, providing useful context beyond 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 three sentences, front-loaded with access control, and each sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 read-only stats tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, authentication, reported items, and billing note. It could briefly mention error handling, but the output schema likely covers return structure.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by specifying adminSecret must match the env var, period format YYYY-MM, and default behavior (current UTC month), which enriches the schema descriptions.

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 tool reports admin usage and revenue stats, listing specific data categories (API-key usage, top-called tools, alerts, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its admin-only nature.

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 it is operator-only and requires adminSecret, with a clear authentication mechanism. It also notes it is not billed as a premium call. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but given no sibling admin tools, this is sufficient.

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, destructiveHint=false. The description adds critical context: it never signs and never sees the user's main key, and it clarifies what the tool generates (payload and instructions). This adds value beyond 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?

The description is four sentences, each adding value. It front-loads 'Read-only' and succinctly conveys purpose, safety, and a disclaimer. 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?

Given zero parameters, annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and its safety profile. However, it does not explicitly state the context in which this guide should be used (e.g., before paying a fee), which might leave some ambiguity for new users.

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 no parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description provides essential meaning by explaining that the tool generates a payload and instructions, thus clarifying the tool's output and purpose beyond the empty 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 states it generates an approveBuilderFee action payload and step-by-step instructions, specifying the target authorization (HyperSignal builder code with MAIN wallet). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., order placement, market queries) by being a read-only guide.

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 this is used as a preparatory step for authorizing the builder fee, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The sibling tools are unrelated, so no direct comparison is needed.

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?

Adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the dry-run default and submission requirements. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns with these without contradicting. It also clarifies the local wallet scope.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences front-loaded with the primary action, followed by critical usage instructions and a disclaimer. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the presence of output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects (dry-run, submission, local wallet). It does not mention failure handling or permission requirements, but these are likely covered by output schema or implied by context.

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 description explains the interplay between dryRun and confirm, which is not fully detailed in the schema (only 50% schema coverage). The schema descriptions for oid and coin are sufficient, but the tool description compensates for missing parameter semantics on dryRun and confirm.

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 action (cancel) and resource (resting order) with specific identifiers (coin + order id) and scope (local agent wallet). It distinguishes from siblings like hl_place_order and hl_close_position by focusing on cancellation of resting orders.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on dry-run default and the required combination of confirm=true and dryRun=false to submit, which is essential for correct use. However, it does not compare alternatives or specify when not to use this tool relative to siblings.

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 mark destructiveHint=true. The description adds behavioral details: 'reduce-only market (IOC) order', 'builder code attached', 'dry-run by default', and 'irreversible'. These go beyond the annotations by specifying order type and execution mode.

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 concise sentences. First sentence states the action, second provides critical usage conditions and a warning. No wasted words.

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 4 parameters, 50% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description covers the main purpose, usage conditions, and a key behavioral warning. It could mention the return value or further details about 'builder code', but it is sufficient for an agent to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 50%, so baseline is 3. The description clarifies the dryRun and confirm parameters by stating the dry-run default and the condition to submit, adding meaning beyond the schema's defaults. It also implies the address parameter via 'local agent wallet'. However, it does not explicitly describe all 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 'close' and the resource 'open perp position' via a reduce-only market order. It distinguishes from siblings like hl_place_order by being specific to closing positions. No ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly states the dry-run default and the condition to submit (confirm=true AND dryRun=false). Warns that it is irreversible. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like hl_place_order, though the context is clear.

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 mark it as read-only and idempotent. The description adds that it is a snapshot (point-in-time data) and enumerates return fields, providing useful context beyond 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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Each element (purpose, parameters, behavior, return data) is efficiently communicated.

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 only one parameter and an existing output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, input, behavior, and return data. No gaps remain.

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 describes the address parameter well (EVM 0x address, 42 hex chars). The description does not add further parameter semantics, but schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly specifies it provides a perp account snapshot for any address listing equity, margin usage, withdrawable, and open positions with details. Distinguishes from siblings like hl_get_markets and hl_get_open_orders by focusing on account-specific data.

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?

States it is read-only and works for any public 0x address, implying no authorization is needed for public addresses. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, the scope is clearly defined.

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 indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds ordering (most-recent-last) and pagination behavior, and that lookback is ignored if startTime given.

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, perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose. Every phrase adds value, no 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?

Covers key usage details for a 7-parameter tool. Mentions pagination but not output schema details (though output schema exists). Adequate for a data retrieval tool with good annotations.

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?

Description explains the mutual exclusivity of time range vs lookback, and specifies epoch ms for time parameters. Schema covers 57% of parameters, and description adds clarity beyond 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?

Description clearly states it retrieves OHLCV candlestick history for a coin at a given interval, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like hl_get_orderbook and hl_get_funding_history by focusing on candles.

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?

Describes two usage modes: startTime/endTime or lookback. Provides context on pagination and ordering (most-recent-last). Does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives, but the use case is clear.

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, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds value by detailing output (hourly rates, cumulative and average annualized) and default window. No contradictions, but it omits pagination behavior or rate limits.

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, front-loaded with the core action and outcome. Every sentence is meaningful: the first specifies what it does, the second gives use case and default. No wasted words.

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 has 5 parameters, robust annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: data granularity (hourly), computed fields (cumulative, average annualized), default window, and use case. Missing explicit mention of pagination, but the schema provides bounds on limit/offset. Overall adequate for agent invocation.

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 60%, meaning 3 of 5 parameters have descriptions. The description adds meaning by referencing 'coin' and 'time window' (startTime/endTime) and stating the default. However, it does not cover limit/offset, so the description adds moderate value beyond the 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 states the tool returns 'Historical hourly funding rates for a coin over a time window, with cumulative and average annualized funding.' It specifies the verb (get rates), resource (funding history), and scope (hourly, cumulative, average). Among sibling tools, none duplicate this functionality, so differentiation is inherent.

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 says 'Use for carry analysis and funding trend,' providing clear context for when to invoke the tool. It also notes the default time window of 7 days. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternative tools, but the sibling list makes it obvious that this is the sole funding history tool.

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 indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it is paginated and lists the returned fields, providing useful additional context beyond 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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and key details. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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 presence of an output schema and relatively simple parameters, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns and that it is paginated. Could mention limit/offset defaults but not critical.

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 50% with address and coin having descriptions. The description does not elaborate on parameters beyond stating pagination, but parameter names are self-explanatory. No significant added value over 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?

Clearly states it retrieves open resting orders for a given address, listing the fields returned. Distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on live order book footprint and being read-only.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use to inspect any wallet's live order book footprint', providing clear usage context. Does not explicitly exclude other use cases but implies the tool's purpose well.

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, destructiveHint=false. Description adds no new behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, but does not contradict them.

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, no waste. First sentence defines output, second gives usage guidance and alternative. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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 low complexity (2 params, output schema exists, annotations present), description covers purpose, usage, and fallback. Lacks mention of real-time nature or update frequency, but overall adequate.

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%, so baseline 3. Description does not add significant information beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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?

Clearly states it provides Level-2 order book for a coin with specific data (top-N bid/ask levels, price, size, order count, spread, mid). Distinguishes from siblings by specifying use for microstructure and liquidity analysis.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (microstructure, spread, near-touch liquidity) and provides an alternative action if coin is unknown (call hl_get_markets). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but context from siblings is reasonable.

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?

Disclosures beyond annotations: dry-run mechanism, irreversible real orders when submitted, builder fee attachment. Aligns with destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false.

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 focused sentences with a clear warning. Front-loaded purpose. Every sentence contributes, though slightly longer due to necessary risk disclosure.

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?

Covers submission flow, risk, builder fee, and testnet advice. With output schema present, return values are assumed documented. Adequate for a trading 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 coverage is high (78%). Description adds global context (builder code, dry-run logic) but does not detail individual parameters beyond what schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it places a limit or market perp order via the agent wallet with builder code. It differentiates from sibling tools (e.g., hl_twap_order for TWAP) by specifying the order type and dry-run feature.

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?

Provides explicit instructions: dry-run by default, submit with confirm=true and dryRun=false. Warns to test on testnet. Lacks explicit comparisons to siblings but context enough for correct use.

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 show non-read-only, non-destructive. Description adds that calling again replaces the key but keeps quota, safe if lost but not a quota reset. This behavioral detail goes beyond 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?

Four well-structured sentences with no redundancy. Front-loaded with core action, then quota info, then usage hint, then repeat-call behavior. Every sentence is valuable.

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 1 optional boolean param (100% schema coverage), presence of output schema, and low complexity, the description fully covers purpose, usage, behavior, and continuation (X-API-Key header). No gaps.

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?

Single boolean parameter 'acknowledge' with schema description covering it fully. Description does not add new meaning beyond schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'issue' and resource 'free API key', with instant and no signup. It uniquely distinguishes from sibling tools that are all trading/data operations.

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?

Explicitly says 'call this first if a premium tool says it needs a key'. Also explains behavior on repeated calls (replaces previous key, same monthly usage). Does not state when not to use, but context is clear.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds key behavioral context: 'out-of-sample evidence,' 'only server-selected cohorts,' and 'caller cannot steer.' This goes beyond annotations by explaining the sampling limitation and the nature of the analysis.

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 paragraph that front-loads the purpose and outcomes. It uses roughly 60 words to convey purpose, methodology, verdicts, and constraints. While slightly dense, every sentence adds value and there is no 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?

Given zero parameters, comprehensive annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the presence of an output schema (assumed), the description fully covers what the tool does, its limitations (server-selected cohorts), and usage context. It leaves no ambiguity for an AI agent.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to add parameter meanings. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output interpretation.

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 specifies exactly what the tool does: computes Spearman rank correlation between wallet scores and forward PnL, and mean PnL per quartile, returning verdicts like 'insufficient_data' or 'positive'. It includes a directive to read this before treating the score as a forecast, which defines its unique role distinctly from sibling tools like hl_place_order or hl_get_orderbook.

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 states 'Read this before treating the score as a forecast', implying its use for calibration. It also notes that only server-selected cohorts are sampled, so the caller cannot steer results. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use, the context of being a calibration tool is clear, and no sibling tools serve a similar purpose, making guidance strong.

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?

The description adds significant value beyond the annotations by specifying the exact format of the returned key (SPKI DER, base64) and the canonicalization method for verification. This fully discloses the tool's behavior.

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 very concise with two sentences, each conveying essential information without any redundancy. It is well-structured 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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description is complete. It adds the critical canonicalization detail, which is necessary for understanding the tool's return value. No gaps are present.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information, so a baseline score of 4 is appropriate.

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 tool returns the server's Ed25519 public key in SPKI DER base64 format, used for verifying signal authenticity. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which deal with markets, orders, and accounts, making its purpose unique and specific.

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 the tool is used when one needs to verify a signal's authenticity and timestamp, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. However, given the uniqueness of this tool, the context 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?

Goes beyond annotations by describing dry-run schedule, live plan persistence, process death risks, and real order execution conditions. Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, which is consistent.

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?

Well-structured with warnings and key points. Slightly long but every sentence adds value. Could be tighter but efficient overall.

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?

Covers the main workflow, risks, and usage modes. Lacks detailed parameter explanations which are critical given 0% schema coverage. Output schema exists but not referenced.

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 has 0% description coverage, but description only mentions parameters in passing (coin, side, totalSize, slices, durationMinutes, dryRun, confirm, reduceOnly). Does not explain reduceOnly or other details meaningfully.

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 clearly states the tool accumulates/reduces a position via TWAP to minimize market impact. It provides a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes from siblings like hl_place_order.

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?

Explains when to use (slicing to reduce impact), dry-run vs live execution, and includes warnings about irreversible actions and testnet testing. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use compared to alternatives.

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