hl_outcome_account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that raw=true returns the backend payload and that the default is a normalised shape. It says nothing about auth requirements for the managed wallet, error states, or freshness/latency, which keeps it at a solid 3.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource, then a dense but useful enumeration of the payload sections, then two short directive sentences. The parenthetical field lists are long but earn their place by standing in for the absent output schema.

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, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly by naming positions, openOrders, fills, and historicalOrders. Combined with readOnly annotations and mostly-covered params, an agent has enough to call and interpret it; only auth/error specifics for the managed wallet are missing.

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 67%: the schema documents outcomeId and userAddress but leaves raw bare. The description compensates by explaining raw=true returns the backend payload, giving the one undocumented parameter concrete meaning. It does not restate the managed-wallet provenance for userAddress beyond the schema.

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 resource (normalised state of a MANAGED wallet on one HIP-4 outcome market) and enumerates the returned sections, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with other read tools like hl_outcomes or get_hl_open_orders, but the wallet-scoped, per-market framing is distinctive enough to separate it from siblings.

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?

'Use it to reconcile after create/cancel/close' gives a clear when-to-use condition tied to the mutation siblings (hl_create_outcome_order, hl_cancel_outcome_order, hl_close_outcome_order). No explicit exclusions or alternative read tools are named, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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