get_outcome_markets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits: it is a public read requiring no API key, and it returns parsed metadata plus per-side info (Yes/No name, encoding, asset id, mid). It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or whether inactive/expired markets are excluded beyond the word 'active'.

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 zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by the payload shape and the auth note, so an agent gets everything in one pass.

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 and no annotations, the description must carry the return-shape burden, and it does so reasonably by enumerating the parsed metadata and per-side fields. Minor gaps remain around pagination and whether results are exhaustive, but for a parameterless read this is close to complete.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument, whole-list operation.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List active Hyperliquid Outcome markets (HIP-4)'. This clearly separates it from get_outcome_book, get_outcome_view, and get_outcome_positions, which operate on a single market or positions rather than enumerating markets. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it replaces or complements (e.g. get_markets), so it falls just short of a 5.

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 rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the entry point for discovering outcome markets before drilling into one. The only explicit guidance is 'Public read — no API key needed,' which tells the agent it can call freely. No when-not-to-use or alternative routing is given.

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