simulate_transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It correctly states 'no side effects' but lacks details on network compatibility, accuracy guarantees, permission requirements, or whether simulation is deterministic.

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 extremely concise—two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and safety guarantee, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool.

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?

Given the tool has 15 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It merely lists return fields without explaining their structure or behavior. An agent would need to guess the response format or call the tool to learn.

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%, so the input schema already describes all parameters meaningfully. The description adds no extra parameter context beyond the schema, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 simulates a transaction without executing it, listing return values (policy tier, fees, etc.) and explicitly noting no side effects. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that actually execute transactions (e.g., send_token, sign_transaction).

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 implies usage for dry-running transactions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like actual send/transfer tools. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to simulate.

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