HIP-4 Most Active Outcomes

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the ranking order ('ranked by fill count') and the conditional inclusion of metadata ('when available'), which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose and ranking criterion are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a useful caveat about metadata availability.

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?

For a simple read-only ranked-list tool with fully described parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the output shape: outcomes ranked by fill count with optional metadata. It does not enumerate specific return fields, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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%, with all parameters (hours, limit, useToonFormat) already documented with defaults and ranges. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Return'), a specific resource ('HIP-4 outcomes'), and a precise selection/ranking criterion ('ranked by fill count' over a recent window). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like hip4_outcome_summary, hip4_outcome_recent_trades, and hip4_questions.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool: when you want the most active HIP-4 outcomes ranked by fill count. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for related needs, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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