HIP-4 Outcome Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-content context, such as 'metadata when available' plus specific fields, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination, latency, or data availability limits beyond what annotations and schema already 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with a clear verb, target, and output summary. There is no redundancy, filler, or unnecessary elaboration, so every clause 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 read-only single-record tool with complete schema coverage, the description gives enough context about scope and return content for correct invocation. It does not explicitly explain how this tool differs from the many nearby hip4_outcome siblings, but that gap is more about usage routing than completeness of the tool definition itself.

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 schema already explains outcomeId's encoding ('Side-token coins are encoded as #<10*outcomeId+side>') and useToonFormat's default behavior. The description adds no new parameter meaning, but it does not need to because the schema carries the full burden.

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 and resource: 'Get details for one HIP-4 outcome contract by outcome ID,' and enumerates the returned fields (metadata, side tokens, fills, unique wallets, notional USDH, trading timestamps). It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like hip4_outcome_summary or hip4_outcome_recent_trades, so it falls just short of a top score.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need full details for a single HIP-4 outcome. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives among the many sibling tools. The large sibling set makes this a noticeable gap.

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