stellar_soroban_simulate

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers the key behavioral distinction: simulation without submission. It honestly declares the tool's purpose but does not detail additional behaviors such as authentication requirements or error handling.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that directly state the tool's action and a critical negative constraint. No extraneous information is present.

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 complexity of Soroban simulation and the absence of output schema and annotations, the description is adequate but lacks explanation of what 'footprint, events, and results' entail, leaving agents to infer the full output context.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it merely states the function's overall purpose.

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 specifies the verb 'simulate' and the resource 'Soroban smart contract invocation' to obtain 'footprint, events, and results'. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like stellar_soroban_invoke, which submits the transaction.

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 explicitly states 'Does NOT submit transaction', providing clear guidance on when not to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly compare with other related siblings (e.g., stellar_soroban_get_events) to fully clarify usage context.

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