simulateAssetChanges

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

With no annotations, the description solely conveys behavior. It states the tool simulates transactions and previews asset changes, but omits details like whether it reverts on failure, consumes state, or requires specific permissions.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key information, no fluff. Every word earns its place.

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?

No output schema and minimal description. The tool lacks details on return format, error handling, or edge cases. For a simulation tool, agents need more context to understand results.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only hinting at the output (asset changes). It does not explain syntax or constraints for parameters.

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 ('Simulate') and resource ('transaction'), clearly indicating the tool previews asset changes like token transfers and ETH movements. It naturally distinguishes from siblings like simulateAssetChangesBundle or simulateExecution by focusing on asset changes.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., simulateExecution, debugTraceCall). The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or context where this tool is preferred.

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