HIP-4 Trader Outcomes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds operational value by stating the authentication requirement ('Requires a Starter-or-higher key') and specifying the returned data fields, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose, then lists the return fields, then states the access requirement. Every element earns its place and there is no redundant or filler content. It is concise without sacrificing necessary detail.

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?

With no output schema present, the description compensates by listing the expected return fields in reasonable detail and also discloses the auth requirement. It is sufficient for basic invocation, though it could be slightly more complete by noting how this tool relates to sibling outcome-focused tools or by mentioning any pagination or result-size limits.

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 parameters days, address, and useToonFormat are already fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning, but it doesn't need to because the schema carries that burden adequately. Therefore a 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get one wallet's HIP-4 outcome history,' and then enumerates the exact fields returned. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like hip4_outcome_summary or hip4_outcome_recent_trades by emphasizing per-wallet detailed history. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 phrase 'one wallet's HIP-4 outcome history' implies the tool is for per-wallet historical detail, but the description never explicitly states when to choose this over alternatives such as hip4_outcome_summary or hip4_outcome_recent_trades. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, so the usage context is only implied rather than explicit.

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