create_hl_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 implies a write/mutation operation but discloses nothing about authentication needs, permission requirements, reversibility, or side effects of creating a copy trade. Only the schema's parameter descriptions hint at auth via apiKey/sessionPrivateKey.

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, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The second sentence adds some explanatory value about copy-trade behavior, though it borders on restating the obvious.

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?

For a 10-parameter (9 required) creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin on behavioral context. The well-documented schema covers parameters, but nothing explains the creation flow, required auth setup, or what happens on success.

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 10 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: 'Create a new HL perp copy trade', and adds a clarifying clause about copying a trader's long/short perpetual positions. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling create_copy_trade or update_hl_copy_trade, so an agent must infer the difference from the 'HL' prefix alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as create_copy_trade. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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