hl_list_user_copy_pnl

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

No annotations and no output schema, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read of realised PnL but says nothing about pagination behavior implied by page/limit, auth requirements, whether data is real-time or historical, or the time window covered.

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 tight sentence with no filler, and the core resource is front-loaded. It is arguably over-compressed given the gaps, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 3-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should cover pagination, the identity of the user parameter, and the PnL scope. None of that is present, so an agent must infer too much.

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% across 3 parameters. The phrase 'per-user' loosely signals that userAddress is the key input, but page and limit are completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving pagination semantics unexplained.

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 names a specific resource (per-user realised PnL) and a specific context (HL copy-trading), so an agent knows what data comes back. It does not, however, contrast itself with closely related siblings such as get_hl_user_stats or get_wallet_performance, which also surface performance figures.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. With siblings like get_hl_user_stats, get_wallet_performance, and generate_pnl present, the agent is left to guess which performance tool is appropriate.

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