get_hl_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 one piece of non-annotated context, the session-key auth requirement, which is genuinely useful, but it omits return shape and pagination behavior for a list 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 with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the auth precondition. Every sentence earns its place.

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 list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the definition covers purpose and the auth requirement adequately. It stops short of describing pagination or capacity, which for a 'list all' endpoint would have been the last useful addition.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The phrase 'for a user' loosely gestures at userId, but the description adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already provides. 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), resource (HL perp copy trade configurations) and scope (for a user). This is clearly distinct from write siblings like create_hl_copy_trade and from get_hl_copy_trade_tx_list. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the near-named sibling get_copy_trade_list, leaving the HL-vs-generic distinction to the agent to infer.

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 usage (list a user's HL copy trade configs) and gives a precondition ('Requires session-key auth'), but offers no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as get_copy_trade_list or get_hl_copy_trade_tx_list. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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