hl_outcomes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully adds the latency cost of the volume enrichment and its data source (HL WS feed), plus the returned field name volume24hUsd. However, it says nothing about permissions, pagination, or result size limits for a listing call.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the optional enrichment described second. No filler, and the cost caveat is attached directly to the parameter it applies to.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should at least sketch what a 'market' record contains and what dex/status accept. Instead it leaves two of three parameters and the return shape entirely undocumented, which is thin for a listing tool with no annotations to fall back on.

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 description coverage is only 33%: dex and status have no schema descriptions at all, and the description doesn't explain what values they accept or what they filter on. The description does add real meaning for withVolume (notional 24h volume, WS feed, slower), but it fails to compensate for the two undocumented parameters.

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: 'List available HyperLiquid outcome / event markets.' An agent can distinguish it from the read-oriented siblings. It stops short of naming the nearest alternative (get_hl_outcome_volumes), so it loses the top mark for sibling differentiation.

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 gives conditional guidance for one parameter ('Set withVolume=true to enrich ... adds a few seconds'), which implies the cost/benefit tradeoff. But it never says when to call this tool versus get_hl_outcome_volumes or how dex/status should be used to narrow results, so usage is only partially implied.

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