create_copy_trade

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a mutating creation action, but omits critical context: that it requires apiKey/sessionPrivateKey/userId credentials, whether the trade starts mirroring immediately, and what happens on failure. For a 13-param mutation with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope; every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

The schema fully documents all 13 parameters and no output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a complex credential-gated creation tool with no annotations, the description leaves the authentication/session requirements and post-creation behavior unexplained.

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% and each parameter (buyMode, chainId, lossPercent, copyBuyAmount, etc.) is documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already states.

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+resource ('Create a new copy trade') plus the behavior it enables ('auto-mirror a Solana trader's buys/sells') and a platform scope ('Solana only'). The Solana-only qualifier usefully distinguishes it from the sibling create_hl_copy_trade, though it doesn't name that sibling explicitly.

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 'Solana only' note implies when this tool applies rather than the Hyperliquid variant, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (sign-in, session key), and no routing to update_copy_trade for modifying an existing trade.

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