agent_simulate_order

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavior: it is read-only, does not create real orders, requires API key, returns small data (~1KB), and outlines the simulation flow. It ensures the agent knows it is safe and non-destructive.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (function, scenario, keywords, parameters, auth, risk, return size, link). Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists returned values (estimated price, slippage, fee, capital) and covers auth and risk. It is complete for a simulation tool, providing all necessary context for proper use.

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%, but the description adds context for each parameter (e.g., side with buy/sell translations, px as optional for limit orders). It repeats some schema info but enhances understanding with usage context.

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 an order without creating a real one, returning estimated values such as price, slippage, fees, and capital usage. It distinguishes itself from real order tools like agent_quick_trade, and mentions specific outputs.

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 the use case: when the agent answers 'what if I buy 0.1 BTC now' to let users understand costs without risk. It also links to the next step (agent_quick_trade for real ordering), providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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