simulate_transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only states the purpose, not what 'simulate' actually does (e.g., returns errors, gas estimates, whether it mutates anything). Missing details like output format or side effects.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with the prerequisite in brackets and no extraneous words. Every element 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the simulation returns or how to interpret errors. It lacks this critical information, and the operational behavior remains vague. The prerequisite and input coverage are helpful but not sufficient.

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 fully describes both parameters (transaction as base64 string, user_wallet as public key). The description adds no additional semantics, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate due to 100% 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 uses a specific verb ('Simulate') and resource ('a transaction') with a clear intent ('before signing to check for errors'). Among siblings like build_* or validate_*, this operation is clearly distinct as a pre-signing sanity check.

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 a required environment condition (BAOZI_LIVE=1) and contextualizes usage as before signing. It does not name alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use this tool.

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