arc_token_sellsim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool performs a live simulation against current chain state, reports a fraction, returns NO_DATA when simulation fails, and never scores zero on a failed simulation — a useful edge-case guarantee. The paid-tier warning also adds practical context.

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 three sentences with the core method front-loaded, followed by the interpretation threshold and the cost/failure caveats. Every sentence adds necessary information, and the parenthetical about failed simulations is valuable rather than redundant.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the result semantics, how to interpret the result, and the failure case. An agent has enough information to decide when to call it and to interpret either a numeric fraction or NO_DATA correctly.

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 documents the single parameter ca with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter-level guidance, but none is needed for a single well-documented contract-address parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: a honeypot test for an Arc token via a live buy-then-sell simulation. It also states the output — the round-trip fraction recovered — which clearly separates it from siblings like arc_token_screen or arc_pool_decoy even without naming them.

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 gives a clear decision threshold: below ~0.9 the token is likely a honeypot or punitive-tax trap. It also flags the route as heavy and paid-tier, warning the agent about cost. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this tool, so it stops 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.