simulate_transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a dry-run (no broadcast), returns success/revert, gas estimate, and decoded revert reason. This covers key behavioral traits, though it omits details like idempotency or authorization.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the essential purpose and returning information. No redundant words.

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?

Although the schema describes each parameter, the overall workflow (e.g., parameter dependencies based on 'kind') is not explained. For a tool with 9 parameters and complex interactions, the description is minimally complete but lacks guidance on how to properly construct the input.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description only adds context for the 'kind' parameter (native/erc20/contract) but does not elaborate on other parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 specific verbs ('dry-run', 'without broadcasting') and clearly identifies the resource (transaction types: native/erc20/contract). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like send_native or write_contract that would broadcast.

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 use for testing before actual broadcasting but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_native or write_contract. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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