hl_list_user_copy_pnl

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 only the word "realised", with no disclosure of data freshness, whether PnL is aggregated per copy-trade or across all, or what happens with unknown addresses — for an open-world read against external data this is thin added context.

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?

A single short sentence with no waste and the core concept front-loaded, but its brevity comes from omission rather than efficiency — the space saved is not reinvested in the parameter or usage detail an agent needs.

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 three-parameter, paginated, external-data query tool with no output schema, the description should at least sketch the return shape (per-coin? per-copy-trade?), pagination semantics, and address format. None of that is present, so an agent has to guess before invoking.

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 0% and the description says nothing about the three parameters. userAddress is required but its expected format is undocumented, and page/limit (pagination) are entirely unexplained in both schema and description, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

"Per-user realised PnL from HL copy-trading" names the resource (PnL) and the domain (HL copy-trading), and "realised" mildly differentiates it from hypothetical/unrealised PnL tools. But it is close to a restatement of the tool name and does not clarify the unit, time window, or aggregation level versus siblings like get_hl_user_stats or get_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?

No guidance on when to use this instead of the many sibling analytics tools (get_hl_user_stats, get_portfolio, get_wallet_performance, get_hl_copy_trade_list). No prerequisites, no mention of whether the user address must be an HL copy-trade participant.

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