get_copy_trade_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the session-key auth requirement, which is useful and not in the annotations, but says nothing about the shape, size, or pagination of the returned list.

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 sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the one constraint that matters. Nothing to trim.

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 parameterless read-only list with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It nonetheless omits any differentiation from the many sibling copy-trade and HL copy-trade tools, which is the main gap an agent would need filled for confident selection.

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% (data, userId, accountRef all documented in the schema, including the note that accountRef supplies secrets so no secret is passed in chat). The description adds no parameter detail, so 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 (copy trade configurations) scoped to a user, which is clear on its own. However, it does not differentiate from the crowded sibling family (get_copy_trade_wallets, get_copy_trade_gems, get_copy_trade_dexes, get_copy_trade_tx_list, and especially the parallel get_hl_copy_trade_list), so an agent cannot tell which 'copy trade list' this is without opening the schema.

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?

'Requires session-key auth' gives one usage precondition, which is real context. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs the other copy-trade list tools, no exclusions, and no named alternative, leaving routing to inference.

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