upvest_simulate_order

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 discloses the validation checks (ISIN, limits, cash buffer) and 'simulates' implies no execution side effects, but it omits auth requirements, idempotency, error behavior, and result format. It adds useful behavioral context but is incomplete.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the core action first and contains zero filler or repetition.

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 input schema is fully documented and no output schema exists, but the description still lacks usage guidance, side-effect clarity, and return-value expectations. For a seven-parameter tool with no annotations, more context would help an agent call it confidently.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters. The description mentions checks involving ISIN, limits, and cash buffer, but adds no syntax, format, or dependency detail beyond what the schema provides; 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?

Uses a specific verb phrase ('validates and simulates') with a clear resource ('investment order') and scope ('against Upvest Investment API rules'). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tools, but the resource is distinct enough; calibration treats clear verb+resource without sibling naming as a 4.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no prerequisites. The word 'simulates' implies pre-trade validation, but the description never states when an agent should call this tool versus placing an order or using a sibling tool.

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