get_hl_copy_trade_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the session-key auth requirement, but does not state pagination behavior, whether results are filtered or complete, or any error/auth-failure semantics for a read operation.

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, purpose first and the auth prerequisite second, with no filler. Every clause carries information the agent can act on.

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 full schema coverage this is minimally adequate. Without annotations or an output schema, the description could do more (e.g., what a configuration entry contains, whether the list is exhaustive), but nothing essential for invoking it is missing.

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 and data are documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond 'for a user', which merely restates the userId parameter.

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 ('HL perp copy trade configurations') with a clear scope ('for a user'). The 'HL perp' qualifier helps separate it from the generic sibling get_copy_trade_list, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with that sibling or with get_hl_copy_trade_tx_list.

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 usage is implied by the name and the phrase 'for a user', and it states a prerequisite ('Requires session-key auth'). However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance (e.g., vs. get_copy_trade_list, get_hl_copy_trade_tx_list, or the update/create siblings).

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