HIP-4 markets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations: it covers every deployer, returns live pricing with fair line and edge after fees, and supports filtering and paging. It does not address authentication or rate limits, but it clears the annotation-adjusted bar.

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 no waste. The core listing purpose is front-loaded, followed by the filter/sort/page capabilities in a single efficient clause.

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 an output schema present and rich annotations, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers scope, filtering, sorting, and paging adequately for a six-parameter optional-filter list tool. The main gap is the absence of sibling routing guidance.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description restates the same filters and sort options without adding syntax or interpretation details beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 names a specific verb and resource — listing HIP-4 outcome markets across every deployer — and adds scope details like live top of book and edge after fees. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the sibling odds_fair, odds_new, or odds_cluster tools, even though sorting by 'new' overlaps with odds_new.

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 through capability listing (filter, sort, page), but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over odds_fair or odds_new. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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