simulate_points

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description contributes that results are projections ("hypothetical," "speculative") and lists returned artifacts, but says nothing about accuracy caveats, whether inputs are validated against on-chain state, or the authority requirement hinted at in the metadata prefix.

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 purpose sentence is two tight clauses with no waste, but it is preceded by a bracketed gateway-metadata block (capability/tier/API/authority paths) that delays the front-loaded purpose. Useful operational context is buried ahead of the statement of what the tool does.

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?

With 7 required parameters, a nested object, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the one-line description is not enough. It hand-waves the return shape ("estimated points, gas, and speculative USD value") without mapping it to fields, and gives no guidance on how to supply the inputs the projection needs.

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 0% across 7 required params, so the description must compensate and does not. It never mentions volume, transaction count, days active, wallet balance, unique contracts, CEX-funding flag, or the nested protocolPoints map. The word "configuration" is the only hint that inputs are supplied, and the nested object is entirely undiscussed.

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?

Names a specific verb ("Project") and resource ("FarmScore") and states the return payload: estimated points, gas, and speculative USD value for a hypothetical configuration. It is clearly distinguishable from mutation siblings like simulate_intent or execute_swap only by inference from "points"/"FarmScore"; no sibling is named. Not tautological, but the jargon term needs unpacking.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the text whether this replaces querying a real wallet's score or strictly models hypothetical inputs. Sibling tools like simulate_intent and get_farming_context are not referenced as alternatives or prerequisites.

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