resume_copy_trade

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=true, openWorld=true). The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: idempotency ('No-op if already active') and the important fact that 'Trades made while paused are not replayed'. It does not explain that resuming re-enables live fund-spending execution, a minor gap given destructiveHint.

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 tight sentences, each earning its place, with the core action front-loaded. No redundant restatement of the title or name.

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 key state transition, idempotency, and the non-replay rule, while annotations carry the safety profile. It stops short of noting auth/session prerequisites or the fund-spending implication of resuming, but is nearly complete.

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 five parameters (including copyTradeId and accountRef) are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of isActive=true is a state note rather than parameter guidance, so 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 and resource ('Resume a paused Solana copy trade') and includes the resulting state (isActive=true). The 'Solana' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling resume_hl_copy_trade (Hyperliquid), so an agent can route correctly without opening the 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?

Usage is implied by 'Resume a paused ... trade', but the description never states when to prefer this over pause_copy_trade/update_copy_trade or what prerequisite state is required. No explicit when-not or alternative guidance is given, so this is minimum viable.

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