get_copy_trade_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load. 'List' implies a non-mutating read, and the session-key auth requirement is real behavioral context beyond the schema. But it omits pagination, return shape, and failure modes for an auth-gated endpoint.

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, zero filler, with the purpose stated first and the auth prerequisite second. Nothing can be trimmed without losing information.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description plus the fully covered schema gives an agent what it needs to invoke correctly: what it returns (a list of configs), for whom (a user), and under what auth. Only the return-field detail and pagination are absent.

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% – both 'userId' (control wallet address) and 'data' (AES-encrypted session key) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no format, encoding, or sourcing guidance beyond that, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('List all copy trade configurations') scoped to a user, which is enough to tell it apart from write siblings like create_copy_trade and update_copy_trade. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-identical get_hl_copy_trade_list sibling.

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 implies read usage and notes the session-key auth prerequisite, which is genuinely useful. It gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance and never mentions the close alternatives (get_hl_copy_trade_list, get_copy_trade_tx_list).

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