HIP-4 Daily Volume

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

Annotations already convey the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description does not need to restate that. It adds contextual value by framing the data as a daily trajectory for outcome-market trends, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as ordering, pagination, or 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary action and included metrics appear first, followed by the intended use case. Every part 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 simple read-only trend tool with well-documented parameters and rich annotations, the description is complete. It lists the returned metric dimensions and the intended analytical use, so an agent can invoke it correctly without needing an output schema.

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% and both parameters (days, useToonFormat) have descriptive documentation in the schema itself. The description adds general context about the data being daily but does not need to compensate for missing schema information.

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 ('Get daily HIP-4 volume trajectory') and enumerates the exact metrics returned (fills, unique trades, unique wallets, contracts, notional USDH). This clearly identifies the tool's scope and differentiates it from sibling HIP-4 tools like outcome summaries or recent trades.

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 intended context: 'Use for outcome-market activity trends.' This tells an agent when the tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools.

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