simulate_bundle

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 states the tool 'simulates' (suggesting no on-chain execution), but it does not explicitly disclose that no real transaction is broadcast, how the private key is used, or what 'returns' means (tool output vs simulated asset returns). The lack of explicit safety profile is a gap.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action 'Simulate' and provides the key purpose efficiently.

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?

The tool has a complex input structure (array of transactions) and no output schema. The description does not explain what the agent will receive back (simulation results format), the meaning of 'returns', or any side effects. This leaves the agent underspecified 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents all parameters.

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' with a specific resource 'a bundle of transactions' and states the purpose 'to check execution and returns'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tool 'simulate_transaction' which simulates a single 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 the tool is for simulating multiple transactions together ('a bundle'), but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like 'simulate_transaction' or provide exclusions. There is no clear when/when-not guidance, only implicit usage.

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