get_hl_outcome_volumes

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the source feed and the return shape ({ coin: volumeUsd } map), implying a read-only snapshot, but omits auth requirements, rate limits, or staleness/latency details.

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?

Three tight sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the core action and return format. Every sentence carries information.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the return map and the aggregation use case. Remaining gaps (auth/feed connection requirements) are minor.

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%, so the single parameter and its example format are already documented in the schema. The description's example values and side-coin summation hint add only marginal value, matching the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get 24h notional volume (USD) per outcome coin') and identifies the data source (HyperLiquid WS feed). Clear enough to distinguish from read siblings like get_all_mid_prices, but it does not explicitly name a contrasting alternative.

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?

Provides concrete input usage ('Pass coins like ["#1010","#1011"]') and how to interpret the result ('Sum a market's side coins for its total 24h volume'), which is implied guidance. However, it gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternatives.

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