pause_copy_trade

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the read-before-write pattern, no-op-if-already-paused semantics, and precisely what survives the pause (open positions and their TP/SL orders stay in place). It also enumerates three error codes with meanings, including PAUSE_STATE_UNVERIFIED meaning nothing was sent. The 'WITHOUT deleting it' framing sits in mild tension with destructiveHint=true, but pausing does mutate stored state, so this is not a contradiction.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the key constraint, then the state behavior, then the error taxonomy in one compact sentence. Four sentences, each carrying distinct decision-relevant information with no filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the state outcome, the no-op case, and failure modes well enough to call it safely. It does not say what a successful response returns or whether the pause is idempotent beyond the already-paused case, which is a minor residual gap.

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 copyTradeId, accountRef, apiKey, userId and sessionPrivateKey are all documented in the schema itself, including the hint that the ID comes from get_copy_trade_list. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., accountRef vs apiKey/sessionPrivateKey precedence), so the 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+resource ('Pause a Solana copy trade') and immediately scopes it against the obvious sibling alternative by saying it happens 'WITHOUT deleting it'. The parenthetical (isActive=false) pins the exact state change, so an agent can distinguish it from delete_copy_trade and resume_copy_trade without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear context for use: pause rather than delete when positions should be kept, and it explicitly notes the no-op path when already paused, which prevents redundant calls. It does not name the concrete alternatives (resume_copy_trade, delete_copy_trade) by name, so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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