investor_simulate_action

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses that the tool is a simulation and does not place orders, which is a critical behavioral trait. It provides the action structure but omits potential error handling, response format, or limits, which would elevate it to 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?

The description is two sentences, each earning its place: the first states the purpose, the second explains the action format and reinforces the no-order behavior. It is front-loaded and free of extraneous content.

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 the moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers core purpose and behavior but is incomplete regarding return values, error handling, and valid action types. It sufficiently supports the agent for basic use.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds the structure of each action object ({action, instrument, amount}), which clarifies the actions parameter. However, it does not explain individual fields like action values or id_type, nor does it describe the account_ids parameter.

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 simulates buy/sell/reduce/increase actions as a 'what-if', explicitly noting it does not place broker orders. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like investor_get_portfolio or investor_recommend_next_action.

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 description implies usage for testing actions without real orders, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., recommending or executing orders). It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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