dex-simulate-swap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates this is a simulation (non-executing) operation, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like whether it accounts for slippage, gas fees, or pool depth, which would be helpful for a simulation tool.

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?

Two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by essential prerequisite guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 simulation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good purpose and usage guidance but lacks information about what the simulation returns (expected output amounts, fees, success indicators). The context about checking pools first is helpful but doesn't fully compensate for the missing output details.

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 4 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('simulate a token swap'), the resource ('tokens'), and distinguishes it from execution ('to get expected outcome without executing it'). It differentiates from sibling 'dex-swap' which would be the actual execution tool.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('to get expected outcome without executing it') and provides a prerequisite action ('must first check two tokens are available in the DEX pools by using `dex-get-pools`'). This gives clear guidance on the proper workflow and distinguishes it from the execution alternative.

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