Simulate Transaction (Dry Run)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds useful context about safety warnings (e.g., 1-satoshi outputs likely to be ordinals) and the fact that it uses ORDnet's own node, enhancing understanding beyond annotations.

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 concise, front-loaded with a clear purpose, and uses a structured Args/Returns format. It includes necessary guidance and return shape without any wasteful text.

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?

Despite the lack of an output schema, the description explicitly lists the return fields (txid, sizeBytes, outputCount, totalOutputSats, outputs, warnings), covering the key information for use. With annotations ensuring safety and a single well-described parameter, the description is sufficient.

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 single parameter rawHex is fully described in the schema with details about hex format and dry-run behavior. The description's Args section merely repeats this, adding no new semantic meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool decodes and inspects a raw transaction without broadcasting it, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling broadcast tools by framing it as a dry-run simulation before ordnet_inscribe_broadcast.

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?

It explicitly instructs to use this tool before ordnet_inscribe_broadcast to verify transaction behavior, providing a clear context. It does not detail when-not, but the contrast with broadcasting makes the usage boundary obvious.

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