hl_outcomes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: that withVolume performs a bounded wait, that raw returns the backend payload unchanged, that quoteToken collateral sits in the HL spot balance, and that settlement cannot be claimed via GDEX. It stops short of stating rate limits, pagination limits, or auth prerequisites, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 purpose then return shape, with no filler sentences. It is a single dense paragraph rather than structured bullets, which marginally hurts scannability for ten parameters, but every clause carries information.

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 correctly shoulders the return-value burden and enumerates fields, states, rules, and settlement semantics, which is what an agent needs for a discovery tool. It leaves minor gaps around auth/preconditions and explicit sibling routing, but is otherwise complete for a read-only listing call.

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 90%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining what the returned fields mean (outcomeId, sides, price = current mid, tick size, min order notional) and by clarifying the effect of withVolume, raw, and detail. The interaction note that sortBy=volume implies withVolume is a useful cross-parameter semantic the schema does not state.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Discover Hyperliquid HIP-4 outcome markets') and immediately differentiates scope by noting GDEX has no Polymarket/Kalshi, which separates it from siblings like hl_outcome_account or hl_create_outcome_order. An agent knows this is the market-discovery call.

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 (browse/filter outcome markets) and the GDEX-vs-competitors note gives context, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative such as get_hl_outcome_volumes for volume-only queries. The agent must infer selection from the parameter list.

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