hip4_top_traders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state safety, side effects, or rate limits. The key requirement is the only behavioral clue.

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 deliver purpose, return fields, and a prerequisite. Every word earns its place with 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?

The tool is simple with 3 parameters and no output schema, but the description leaves ambiguity about the ranking criterion ('recent outcome activity' is vague). Return field types or order are not specified, limiting completeness.

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%, meaning parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no additional parameter-level context beyond the schema, but also does not conflict. 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 purpose: 'Rank top HIP-4 outcome traders by recent outcome activity' and lists the specific data fields returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hip4_trader_outcomes and hip4_outcome_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 provides a clear purpose but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like hip4_most_active or hip4_trader_outcomes. The key requirement is noted, but no contextual guidance is given.

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