Simulate an unsigned Terra Classic amino JSON transaction to get estimated gas and burn-tax impact at the current rate using exact integer math.
Simulate an unsigned tx (amino JSON) and report estimated gas plus the burn-tax impact at the current rate, computed in exact integer math.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tx | Yes | unsigned tx JSON (amino style) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It conveys that this is a simulation (not a broadcast), that it uses the current rate, and that math is exact integer; however, it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, error conditions, or response shape.
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?
One compact sentence with no filler: it names the operation, the accepted input format, the outputs, and a key computational detail. The important action and output information is front-loaded.
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 single-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient. It clearly states the two expected outputs (estimated gas and burn-tax impact), though no output schema exists and exact return field names are left unspecified, which is a minor gap.
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?
The schema covers the single parameter completely with 'unsigned tx JSON (amino style)', so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces 'amino JSON' and adds context about simulation and output, but it does not meaningfully extend what the schema already documents.
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 states a specific action ('Simulate an unsigned tx') and a specific resource type ('unsigned tx (amino JSON)'), and specifies the outputs: estimated gas and burn-tax impact. This is concrete enough to be told apart from siblings like explain_tx or tax_params, even without naming them.
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 the intended use case: call this when you need gas and burn-tax estimates for an unsigned amino-format transaction. It also provides a clear input prerequisite ('unsigned tx (amino JSON)'), but it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer an alternative sibling tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.