get_copy_trade_dexes

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact not present in the annotations: 'No auth'. It also implies a static supported-list rather than live data. It stops short of saying whether the list varies by chain deployment or is cached.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the scope constraint, examples folded inline, and no filler. Every clause earns 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 single-required-param read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: purpose, scope, examples, and auth status are all present. Slightly more (e.g. the return shape of the DEX list) would make it complete.

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 the schema already documents chainId with an example value (622112261 for Solana). The description only restates 'for a chain' and adds no format, range, or fallback semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (List) and resource (supported DEXes) scoped by chain, with concrete examples (Raydium, Pumpfun on Solana) that make the domain unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby sibling get_hl_perp_dexes, which lists a similar-but-different DEX set, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a reference lookup used before creating or configuring a copy trade, but the description never says when to call it, what precedes it, or how it differs from get_hl_perp_dexes. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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