The three tools cover related but overlapping decisions: evaluate_orbital_compute_regime already assesses orbital vs. terrestrial viability, while compute_arbitrage_dispatch and solve_optimal_workload_allocation both output routing/allocation decisions (the former a coarse 3-way directive, the latter a percentage split). An agent could plausibly reach for either of the latter two, or start with the evaluator, without a clear rule for ordering. Descriptions help, but boundaries between 'dispatch' and 'allocate' remain fuzzy.

All three names are snake_case and verb-led (evaluate_, compute_, solve_), giving a predictable pattern. Minor deviation: compute_arbitrage_dispatch reads awkwardly (verb + noun-phrase 'arbitrage_dispatch') compared to the cleaner verb_object form of the other two, but the convention is still recognizably consistent.

Three tools is tightly scoped to a narrow analytical domain (orbital compute economics), and each maps to a distinct decision stage: evaluation, real-time arbitrage, and allocation optimization. It is on the lean side for the breadth of physics and economics mentioned, but nothing feels gratuitous.

The surface covers the core lifecycle — assess the regime, decide routing from spot prices, and solve for an optimal split — with no obvious dead ends for the stated purpose. Gaps are minor: there is no tool to inspect or override model constants/thresholds, nor a what-if/sensitivity or report-explanation operation, which an agent may want after getting scores.