Simulate Cashout

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior. The description adds the 'sandbox' context, which is useful for understanding that this is a test environment operation. However, it does not explain what the simulation actually does (e.g., changes status, triggers events) or the side effects beyond the 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 a single concise sentence that immediately states the core function and endpoint. There is no redundant information, and it is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 lack of an output schema and the existence of an enum parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the possible actions ('complete', 'fail', 'reject') or what the tool returns. The overall context is minimal and leaves the agent to infer too much from the schema and tool name.

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%, so the description should compensate, but it does not. It only mentions the endpoint and resource, not the 'id' or 'action' parameters. The schema itself provides enum values for action, but the description adds no additional meaning or context for parameter usage.

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 simulates a cashout in sandbox environment, with the specific endpoint /v1/cashouts/{id}/simulate. It distinguishes from sibling tools like simulate_transaction by explicitly mentioning 'saque' (cashout) and the resource-specific path.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used for testing cashout outcomes or that it differs from simulation of transactions. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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