fluid_get_previews

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'preview' strongly implies a read-only estimation, but the description does not explicitly state whether this is a pure read operation, whether it requires an RPC connection (indicated by the undocumented rpc_url parameter), or what side effects (if any) exist. It adds context about the operation types but lacks depth on behavior.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scoping. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

For a preview/get tool, the description provides the essential purpose and usage context. Given the moderate complexity of 5 parameters and no output schema, it is reasonably complete; however, it lacks guidance on parameter selection (assets vs shares) and the output shape, which would be helpful without an output schema.

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 schema already covers 80% of parameters with meaningful descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific detail, particularly failing to explain the relationship between assets/shares and the operation types (e.g., assets for deposit/mint, shares for withdraw/redeem). The undocumented rpc_url parameter is not compensated for either.

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 uses a specific verb ('get') and clearly identifies the resource ('conversion previews') for deposit/mint/withdraw/redeem operations on an fToken. It distinctly differentiates this from sibling tools like fluid_get_ftoken_details or fluid_build_lending_deposit by focusing on previews rather than details or transaction building.

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?

The phrase 'Useful for estimating output before transacting' provides clear context for when to use this tool—before executing a transaction—which implicitly contrasts with the fluid_build_* tools that are for actually constructing transactions. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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