HIP-4 Perp Position Context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the meaningful behavioral detail that a Pro-or-higher API key is required, which is not conveyed by annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 dense but well-organized: purpose first, followed by return fields, then explicit use cases and the auth requirement. Every sentence contributes useful information and there is 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description reasonably compensates by listing the main output categories and clarifying intended queries. It does not detail exact response shapes or toon-format structure, but those are secondary given the rich output list and schema-covered 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 the schema already documents all four parameters including defaults and ranges. The description adds only a general reference to 'one HIP-4 outcome' aligning with outcomeId, but does not meaningfully extend parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Join') and clearly identifies the resource: HIP-4 outcome holders joined to open perp positions on the same underlying asset. It also enumerates the computed metrics, making the tool's function concrete and easily distinguishable from siblings.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: when users ask whether outcome traders are exposed to the same asset, whether a side is directional or hedged, or which large outcome holders lack perp exposure. It does not name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the use cases are specific enough to guide selection.

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