hl_outcome_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the data categories returned (coins, positions, open orders), which is useful, but it says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the account must be initialized for the outcome market.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and the returned fields in a tight parenthetical. No filler, though the parenthetical list slightly crowds the sentence.

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 two-parameter read-only getter with no output schema, the description covers purpose and rough return contents but leaves userAddress undocumented and gives no sense of the response shape or error conditions. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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 50%: outcomeId is documented in the schema ('Outcome market id, e.g. 101') while userAddress is bare. The description maps both parameters conceptually ('for a wallet on a specific outcome market') but adds no format or type detail beyond that, so it neither compensates nor regresses.

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 (Get) plus resource (HyperLiquid outcomes account state) scoped to a wallet and an outcome market, and even enumerates the returned content (coins, positions, open orders). It is distinguishable from generic siblings like get_account_state by the 'outcomes' qualifier, though it never explicitly contrasts with get_hl_clearinghouse_state or hl_outcomes.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools such as get_hl_clearinghouse_state or hl_outcomes for non-outcome data. The reader must infer usage entirely from the scope phrase 'specific outcome market'.

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