get_hl_outcome_volumes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: data comes from a WS feed, and a missing coin means no reading rather than zero volume — a trap an agent would otherwise fall into.

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: purpose first, then parameter sourcing, then return shape and the missing-vs-zero caveat, then the alternative. No filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating the return shape ({ coin: volume }) and the null-reading semantics. For a single-parameter read tool this leaves nothing an agent needs unanswered.

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 already includes the example array, so the schema carries the baseline. The description still adds provenance by telling the agent to source coins from hl_outcomes sides[].coin, which is meaning beyond the schema's type declaration.

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 with scope: 24h notional volume per outcome side coin from the Hyperliquid WS feed. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling hl_outcomes, which the description itself names as the aggregate 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?

Explicitly recommends preferring hl_outcomes withVolume=true, which reports coverage per market, giving the agent a clear routing rule toward the sibling. It stops short of saying exactly when this narrower tool is the right choice (e.g. after you already hold a coin list).

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