HIP-4 Outcome Recent Trades

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying exactly which fill types are excluded and listing the returned fields: trade time, wallet, side, price, size, PnL, and fee.

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 with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, exclusions follow immediately, and the return fields are listed compactly. Every sentence adds value.

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 recent-trades listing tool with a single required parameter and three optional parameters, the description is complete. It explains what data is returned and what is excluded, which is especially important given there is no output schema to document the response shape.

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 the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description briefly reinforces that the tool targets one HIP-4 outcome, aligning with outcomeId, but it does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get recent real fills for one HIP-4 outcome.' It further distinguishes the tool by excluding settlement, pair-redeem, and auction-phase fills, making it clear how it differs from related tools like hip4_recent_settlements or pulse_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 implies when to use the tool by focusing on 'real fills' and explicitly excluding settlement and auction fills, but it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it. An agent can infer the intended use case but gets no explicit routing guidance among the many sibling tools.

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