get_copy_trade_tx_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external reach are covered. The description adds the session-key auth requirement and the fact that PnL is included in results, which is useful context, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result limits for what is likely a long transaction history.

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 with zero padding, and the core capability ('List copy trade transaction history with PnL') is front-loaded ahead of the auth caveat. It is efficient, though the auth note could have been paired with more useful scoping detail for the same token cost.

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 read-only, no-output-schema list tool with 100% schema coverage, the description covers capability and auth prerequisite adequately. It is still thin on what the transaction list contains beyond PnL, how many records come back, and how it differs from the Hyperliquid-flavored sibling of the same name.

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% with only 3 parameters, so the schema already explains data, userId and accountRef in detail (including which fields accountRef supplies). The description's mention of session-key auth loosely maps to `data`/`accountRef` but adds no new parameter semantics, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('List copy trade transaction history') and adds the payload detail 'with PnL', so the agent knows what it returns. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling variants get_hl_copy_trade_tx_list or get_copy_trade_list, leaving the agent to infer which copy-trade chain/scope applies.

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' is a genuine precondition and better than nothing, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing against the nearly identical siblings (get_copy_trade_list, get_hl_copy_trade_tx_list). Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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