list_outcomes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does specify returned data (IDs, names, descriptions, priceBinary details), which is useful. However, it does not clarify how the network parameter affects results, whether pagination exists, or what 'linked questions' entails.

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 description is concise: two sentences clearly state the action and return values. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, with no wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description only partially covers context. It explains core return fields but leaves out network behavior, side spec definitions, and a full account of linked questions. This is adequate yet incomplete.

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 schema description coverage is 0% because the description omits the only parameter, network. The schema itself provides an enum and default, but the description adds no meaning about network selection or its impact on the listed outcomes.

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 clearly states the tool lists all HIP-4 outcome markets with metadata, side specs, and linked questions, and specifies return fields. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_outcome_prices or search_outcomes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_outcomes. The phrase 'List all' implies usage for comprehensive listing, but no explicit exclusions or alternative tool mentions exist.

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