HIP-4 outcome detail with YES/NO candles

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the compact candle row layout, per-side trade stats, the settled-record branch, and the caveat that settled outcomes usually return no candles. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, keeping it at 4.

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?

The payload description is front-loaded followed by the settled caveat and the id-sourcing note; three sentences, each carrying weight. Slightly dense with parenthetical asides, but no filler.

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 the return-value burden and does it: it defines the row shape, the trade stats, and the settled record, plus defaults and the settled-mode caveat. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 the schema already documents every parameter and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the YES/NO meaning of asset ids and the settled branch, but that mapping is largely already present in the schema descriptions, so it adds only marginal value.

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+resource (drill-down of one HIP-4 outcome into YES/NO candles) and enumerates the payload: candles, per-side trade stats, and the settled record. It explicitly names flowscan_hip4_markets as the source of outcomeId, so an agent can distinguish it from that sibling without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear usage context: only outcomeId is required, asset ids default, and settled outcomes 'typically have no candles' with settled=true. It routes the agent to flowscan_hip4_markets for the required id. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance (e.g., when to prefer a market-level tool), so a 4 rather than 5.

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