get_copy_trade_guide

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 says nothing about what the guide contains, whether it is static reference text or account-specific, or what the response looks like. 'Get' implies read-only, but that is inference, not disclosure.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is not bloated, though the brevity is partly the reason other dimensions are thin.

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 one-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema guide tool, the description is minimally viable but leaves an agent guessing at what the guide returns and when in the copy-trade workflow it should be fetched.

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 coverage is 100% and the chain enum already documents 'solana (spot copy) or hyperliquid (perp copy)', so the description's mention of Solana spot vs HyperLiquid perp is essentially duplicative. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 (Get) and resource (copy trading guide) and names the two supported platforms, so the agent knows what it retrieves. It does not differentiate itself from near-siblings such as get_trading_guide or get_component_guide, which is the only thing keeping it from 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?

The description gives no when-to-use context: it never says to call this before create_copy_trade or create_hl_copy_trade, nor how it relates to get_trading_guide. Usage can only be inferred from the tool name.

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