Prediction markets (HIP-4 outcomes)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact: only settled markets (with results) are returned, not live ones. It does not disclose return volume, ordering, or whether pagination beyond limit exists.

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 well-formed sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and zero filler. 'HIP-4 outcomes' is mildly jargony but immediately disambiguating for a Hyperliquid-aware agent.

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 carries some return-value burden and does say results and trading stats are included, which is helpful. However, for a 4-parameter, no-required-parameter listing tool it leaves gaps: default ordering, whether filters combine, and what the result/stats fields look like.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's 'searchable by text, underlying asset or category' reinforces the three filter axes but adds no syntax, combination, or precedence semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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-like scope (settled Hyperliquid prediction markets, HIP-4 outcomes) plus what data comes back (result and trading stats) and the searchable axes. An agent can immediately tell this apart from the wallet/market-data siblings, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 / when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, result ordering, or when to fall back to hydromancer_raw_request for other HIP-4 queries. The 'searchable by...' clause is closest to usage help but is parameter restatement rather than situational guidance.

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