HIP-4 Questions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some context by naming the source (outcomeMeta) and noting that parsed fields are included 'when present,' but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, or response structure.

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 a single sentence that leads with the core purpose and then packs relevant field details into a readable list. It is slightly dense due to the enumeration, but every item contributes to explaining what the tool returns.

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 the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, read-only annotations), the description provides a clear picture of what is returned and from where. It could be more complete with an explicit mention of the default toon format behavior, but that is already documented in the schema.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single optional parameter useToonFormat, so the schema already explains the parameter fully. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the action ('List') and the resource ('HIP-4 question metadata from Hyperliquid outcomeMeta'), and enumerates the specific metadata fields returned. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like hip4_outcomes or hip4_outcome_summary, so it does not fully achieve the highest sibling-differentiation standard.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many sibling tools, nor does it state any exclusions or alternative recommendations. An agent would have to infer use cases from the tool name and field list alone.

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