HIP-4 Outcomes

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add value beyond that. It does add useful context: it lists only contracts that traded recently, mentions question metadata 'when available', and names the returned trade/volume/timestamp fields. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or result limits.

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?

Three short sentences: an action statement, a compact list of return fields, and a usage directive. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed, what fields are returned, and when to use it. It does not explain result ordering or caps, but the schema fully covers the hours and format parameters.

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 hours and useToonFormat are already fully documented with defaults, bounds, and behavior. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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 ('List'), resource ('active HIP-4 outcome contracts'), and scope ('traded recently'), then enumerates the returned fields. It is clearly about listing contracts rather than summarizing trades or questions, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like hip4_outcome_recent_trades or hip4_most_active.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when users ask what prediction/outcome markets are active,' giving a clear context for when to invoke this tool. It does not specify when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the guidance is direct and not misleading.

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