Update Trader

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds the prerequisite that the trader must be followed, but it does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, or the behavior when optional fields are omitted.

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 with no redundancy. Every word adds value, clearly conveying the tool's purpose.

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 clear schema, annotations (including idempotentHint), and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an update operation. It could mention the optional-field update behavior, but the combination of schema and annotations covers most needs.

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 each parameter already having a clear description (e.g., 'New maximum USDC amount per trade'). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so baseline 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 clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('copy-trading settings') for a specific target ('a trader you are following'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like follow_trader, pause_trader, and batch_update_traders.

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 'for a trader you are following' establishes a clear precondition for use, implying it should not be used to start following someone. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool vs. batch_update_traders or pause_trader.

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