hl_outcome_check_collateral

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 genuinely useful behavioral context: that this checks SPOT collateral (not the perp account) and that outcome buys draw on that spot balance, which explains the tool's role in a workflow.

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 dense sentence with the operation front-loaded and the rationale parenthetically attached. No wasted filler, though the parenthetical makes it slightly hard to parse on first read.

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?

With no output schema, the description could ideally say what the check returns (e.g., sufficient/insufficient), which is a small gap. Otherwise it is complete enough: the agent knows what is being compared and which balance is relevant.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only a marginal hint that the check compares against size × price, but gives no syntax, defaults, or edge-case guidance beyond what the schema states.

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 (Check) and resource (managed wallet's Hyperliquid SPOT balance of a market's quoteToken), and explains the semantic framing (collateral for outcome buys). An agent can identify the operation, though it does not name or contrast itself with any sibling like usdc_get_balances or hl_outcome_account.

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?

Usage is implied through the parenthetical that outcome buys draw on spot collateral rather than the perp account, which hints this is a pre-trade sufficiency check. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so the agent must infer the trigger condition.

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