Simulate token exit pressure

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the description's added value is the disclaimer that this is a proxy estimate, not an executable quote, plus the implied dependency on live market data. That is genuinely useful interpretive context beyond the structured fields, though nothing is said about freshness, rate limits, or error 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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the important caveat immediately after. Every sentence earns its place; there is 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 read-only simulation tool, the description covers purpose, data source, and the proxy caveat, and annotations cover safety. However, with no output schema, the description never indicates what the estimate looks like or what drives it, leaving the agent guessing about the return shape.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It partially does: 'USD position' clarifies that sizeUsd is a USD-denominated notional, but 'token' is left to the schema's address pattern alone and no format or range guidance is added. The schema's own pattern and min/max constraints do much of the work.

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 gives a specific verb (estimate) and resource (exit pressure for a USD position) and names the data source (current Robinhood Chain market data), so the agent knows exactly what the tool computes. It does not contrast itself against close siblings like compare_exit_sizes or explain_exit_signal, so it falls short of the top mark.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite three closely related siblings. The only hint is the caveat that the result is a proxy rather than an executable quote, which clarifies output nature but not when to pick this tool over compare_exit_sizes or explain_exit_signal.

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