simulate_deposit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys the non-executing nature via 'simulate' and notes it estimates gas costs and returns, but it does not explicitly state that no state changes occur or provide any safety or authorization details.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no redundant words.

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?

The description provides the essential purpose and hints at the output (gas costs and returns), and the schema covers the parameters. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance and does not state that it is a read-only simulation, leaving slight ambiguity about whether it actually executes the deposit.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (strategyId and amount), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema covers everything.

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 uses the verb 'simulate' with the resource 'deposit', and states the purpose as estimating gas costs and returns. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'deposit_to_strategy', which actually executes deposits.

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 tool is for estimation before an actual deposit, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like deposit_to_strategy, nor does it provide exclusions. The context is still clear from the word 'simulate'.

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