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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose useful traits such as "FREE", "Live", "empty books filtered", and "Data, not advice". However, it says nothing about pagination, rate limits, auth requirements, or response shape, which matters for a live market-data feed.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: scope, returned fields, filtering behavior, routing hint, and disclaimer all appear without filler. The parenthetical market example is illustrative rather than wasteful, though it slightly lengthens an already packed sentence.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, but the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (outcome id, asset, strike, expiry, settlement source, bid, ask, depth) and the empty-book filter. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only operational details like pagination are absent.

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 optional parameters are documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description's asset examples (BTC, ETH, HYPE, SP500, XYZ100, META) largely restate the schema and it adds no guidance on the `kind` enum values.

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 and resource (listing live Hyperliquid HIP-4 binary price outcome markets) and enumerates the exact fields returned. It also explicitly names the sibling tools get_pm_implied and get_pm_scan, so an agent can distinguish this discovery tool from the analysis tools without opening a schema.

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?

"Use first to see what get_pm_implied and get_pm_scan cover" gives explicit sequencing and names the alternatives, which is strong routing guidance. It stops short of stating when-not to use it or any prerequisite conditions, so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not/alternative rule set.

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