simulate_position_change

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying 'No transaction is sent' and detailing the return of projected health factor and totals. It also explains multi-protocol support, which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions found.

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 with no fluff. First sentence states purpose and return. Second sentence details protocol-specific parameters. Third sentence confirms no transaction. Front-loaded and 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 8 parameters, no output schema, and multi-protocol support, the description adequately covers the core functionality. It explains how to configure different protocols and what the tool returns. However, it lacks detailed output structure (e.g., return type of health factor) and edge cases, so slightly incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'protocol' parameter and its dependent parameters (market for Compound, marketId for Morpho). However, it does not explain 'wallet', 'chain', 'asset', 'amountUsd', or 'action' beyond listing action types. The description provides partial but insufficient detail for all 8 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 clearly states the tool simulates adding/removing collateral or borrowing/repaying debt on a lending position. It specifies the verb 'simulate', the resource 'lending position', and mentions returns (health factor, totals). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like prepare_* which actually execute transactions, and from get_lending_positions which reads current state.

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 implicitly guides when to use (e.g., 'No transaction is sent' indicates it's for preview). It lists supported protocols and how to specify them (protocol, market, marketId). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives like 'use prepare_* for actual execution', leaving some ambiguity.

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