resume_hl_copy_trade

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety bar is lower. The description still adds genuine non-obvious behavior: the call is idempotent ('No-op if already active') and missed fills are not replayed — both affect whether an agent should call it. It does not explain why the operation is flagged destructive (resumed copying places live trades), which keeps 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its precondition, followed by the two edge-case behaviors. No filler and no repetition of name or title.

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?

With one required parameter and a fully documented schema, the main gaps an agent faces are state preconditions and side effects, both of which are addressed (no-op, no replay). It omits any mention of the auth/session parameters (accountRef, sessionPrivateKey) needed for a live-money operation and gives no sense of the success response, which keeps it from a 5.

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%, including the hint that copyTradeId comes from get_hl_copy_trade_list, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond the state reference '(isActive=true)', which is a state flag rather than a parameter. 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 ('Resume a paused HL perp copy trade') with the target state (isActive=true), which distinguishes it from pause_hl_copy_trade, create_hl_copy_trade, and the generic resume_copy_trade. An agent can identify the correct tool 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?

The phrase 'a paused HL perp copy trade' establishes the precondition clearly, and 'No-op if already active' tells the agent it is safe to call without checking state first. It stops short of naming the alternative (pause_hl_copy_trade) or saying when to prefer update_hl_copy_trade_settings instead.

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