hl_create_outcome_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful behavioral trait — that the SDK encrypts structured params into a payload and that a pre-built computedData is also accepted (two input modes). However, it omits auth requirements, execution/irreversibility semantics, and error behavior for a live order-placement tool.

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, front-loaded with the purpose before the parameter detail. The inline param enumeration is dense but each item carries information; no filler sentences.

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 12-parameter, zero-annotation, no-output-schema order tool, the description covers purpose, the two input modes, and key param formats. It still leaves gaps around authentication, required-vs-optional usage (schema shows 0 required), and post-execution behavior, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate, and it does add meaning for several params: walletAddress is the 'control address', coin format like '#1010', price range 0-1, and the computedData alternative. Still, several of the 12 params (dex, isMarket, reduceOnly, outcomeId semantics) remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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: 'Create an order on a HyperLiquid outcome (HIP-3) market.' The scope ('outcome (HIP-3) market') inherently separates it from perp/spot siblings like place_perp_order, but it never names an alternative to route against, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explains how to call the tool (which params, SDK builds the payload) but not when to use it versus siblings such as limit_buy, place_perp_order, or hl_close_outcome_order. No prerequisites, no conditions, no exclusions are stated.

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