createCopyTradeBind

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains auto-resolution of UTA account, symbol scope derivation, downstream flow, and lists common failure modes. Lacks mentions of idempotency or rate limits, but provides good insight into internal behavior.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections: purpose, failures, agent hint. The hint is verbose but valuable. Could be slightly trimmed without losing meaning, but overall every sentence contributes.

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?

Given 2 simple parameters, no output schema, and presence of many sibling tools, this description is thorough: covers inputs, behavior, failures, success response format, and follow-up link. No major gaps.

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 provides only types and names with 0% coverage. The description compensates fully by explaining leaderMark as target leader's mark and investmentE8 as integer e8 string with USDT amount example. Also clarifies auto-resolution of UTA account, so no param needed.

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 clearly states the tool creates a Copy Trading Classic follow binding with specified leaderMark and investmentE8. It distinguishes from siblings by naming 'Classic' and hinting at a separate MT5 bind tool, but does not explicitly differentiate from createCopyMt5Bind.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use (only after obtaining exact leaderMark), when not to (do not infer from nickname), and detailed agent workflow including leaderboard calls, candidate comparison, and success message format. This is comprehensive and actionable.

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