simulate_price

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the paid nature (USDC per call), required parameters (current_price), and default settings. While it does not explicitly state read-only or side-effect-free behavior, the simulation context implies it, and the description is transparent about prerequisites and costs.

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 mostly concise but contains some redundancy (e.g., reiterating the paid cost and default model). It is well-structured with clear sections, but could be tightened slightly by removing repeated mentions. Still, it gets the point across 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 description covers key contextual aspects: the tool's output (5th-95th percentiles, model parameters, confidence intervals), usage differentiation from card_forecast, prerequisites (current_price), and pricing. Given the absence of an output schema, it adequately describes what the caller can expect. No critical information is missing for a correct invocation.

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 has no parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explains 'days' (range 30-365, default 90), 'model' (options like gbm/merton, default conformal), and the required 'current_price'. However, it does not explicitly define 'card_name' or 'simulations', though these are self-explanatory to some degree. Partial compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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's purpose: to simulate a card's price path over a chosen horizon. It explicitly differentiates from card_forecast by highlighting the key distinctions (custom horizon, full percentile curve, Monte Carlo models). This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'use simulate_price only when the user wants a different horizon, the full percentile curve, or a Monte Carlo model.' It also contrasts with card_forecast, making the decision between sibling tools straightforward. Pricing is mentioned, which is a relevant usage consideration.

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