create_hl_copy_trade

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the risk profile is known. The description adds no behavioral context beyond them: it does not say that this begins live copying and commits funds, that credentials (accountRef/apiKey/sessionPrivateKey) are required, or whether the trade can be edited afterward. For a destructive mutation with 11 parameters, that is a meaningful 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 resource. The second sentence is mildly redundant with 'copy trade' in the name but does add the long/short perpetual qualifier, so it earns most of its place.

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 destructive, open-world creation tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and auth-via-accountRef flow, the description omits the setup path (gdex_connect / sign-in), confirmation semantics, and what happens after creation. It names the operation but leaves an agent under-informed about safe invocation of a high-consequence call.

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 all 11 parameters including copyMode, lossPercent, profitPercent, oppositeCopy, and accountRef are documented in the schema itself. The description adds only the general notion of long/short copying, which loosely maps to oppositeCopy but explains nothing about mode semantics or risk percentages. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 clarifies with 'Copies a trader's long/short perpetual positions,' which distinguishes it from the spot-oriented create_copy_trade sibling by naming the HL perp domain. It does not explicitly say how it differs from create_copy_trade or update_hl_copy_trade, leaving the agent to infer scope from the 'HL perp' qualifier.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus create_copy_trade, update_hl_copy_trade, or the related pause/resume tools, and no prerequisites are stated. The agent must discover on its own that this is the creation path for a new perp copy-trade subscription rather than a modification of an existing one.

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