Simulate route-aware Bitcoin Staking yield

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context: 'deterministic' indicates no randomness, 'optional CoinGecko prices enrich the result' discloses a dependency on external data, and 'only when complete' implies a precondition for calculation. No contradiction with 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, front-loaded sentence that states the action ('Calculate') and key conditions. It is concise with no filler words, earning its place. It is appropriately sized for the information it conveys.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool is complex with 11 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no parameter-level guidance. The one-sentence description is insufficient to guide an agent on how to construct valid inputs, which parameters are required in different scenarios, or how to interpret optional parameters. It does not cover edge cases like the relationship between principalBtc and principalSats. Overall, it is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, but it only mentions vague groupings like 'duration, rate, and all applicable route or LST fees' and 'optional CoinGecko prices'. It does not explain key parameters such as bondId, principalBtc, principalSats, or stxPriceScenariosUsd. The description adds little to help an agent understand the 11 parameters beyond what the schema itself provides.

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 calculates route-aware economics (yield) and implies it is for a bond via the title. It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like compare_staking_paths, which also involves yield calculations. The verb 'calculate' and resource 'route-aware economics' are clear enough for an agent to grasp the core purpose.

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 description provides a clear precondition: 'only when duration, rate, and all applicable route or LST fees are complete'. This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate to use. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, so it lacks exclusions. Still, it offers useful context about input readiness.

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