Retrieve Hyperliquid copy trading fill history for a control wallet, with pagination up to 100 records per page. Requires an AES-encrypted session key.
Get HL copy trade fill history. Supports pagination (max 100 per page). Session-key auth. Cached 15s.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | AES-encrypted session key | |
| page | No | Page number | 1 |
| limit | No | Results per page (max 100) | 10 |
| userId | Yes | Control wallet address |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.11.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two meaningful non-schema traits: session-key authentication is required, and results are cached for 15s. It does not state the read-only nature explicitly or describe error behavior for expired session keys, keeping it below a 5.
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?
Three terse sentences, all front-loaded with the core purpose first, then pagination, auth, and caching. No filler or redundancy; every clause carries 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 read-only history tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies auth model, caching behavior, and pagination bounds, which is most of what an agent needs to call it. It does not describe the shape of returned fill records, a minor gap given no output schema exists.
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 the schema already documents userId, data, page, and limit. The description's 'max 100 per page' merely restates the limit field already documented in the schema, adding no new parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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: 'Get HL copy trade fill history.' An agent can distinguish this from get_hl_copy_trade_list (the configurations) and get_hl_trade_history, since it names 'fill history' specifically. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent away from any named 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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named despite several closely related siblings (get_copy_trade_tx_list, hl_tx_list, get_hl_trade_history). Usage must be inferred from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.