ucai_simulate_transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it is a simulation, shows outcome preview, state changes, token transfers, and catches errors, and notes the price. However, it does not explicitly state that no actual transaction occurs or describe limitations, leaving some behavioral traits implicit.

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, all informative: purpose, outputs, and pricing. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no fluff, making it highly efficient.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and expected outputs but does not detail what the actual simulation result structure looks like or handle usage edge cases. It is adequate but incomplete for full contextual understanding.

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% with parameter descriptions already present, so the description adds no extra parameter semantics. It meets the baseline for schema completeness without providing additional detail beyond the schema.

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 it simulates a smart contract transaction before execution, listing the outputs (outcome preview, state changes, token transfers) and error-catching benefit. It is specific and distinct from read-only queries, but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling simulate_transaction or simulate_bundle tools.

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?

Provides clear context by saying 'before execution', implying it is a pre-flight check. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives like the related simulate_transaction tool, so exclusion guidance is missing.

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