arsenkin_estimate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'without a live call' is a meaningful behavioral trait, indicating the tool is non-mutating and does not execute a real submission. But it does not explain validation semantics, error behavior, or authorization needs.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the action, resource, and key constraint.

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 is too terse relative to the 11 sibling tools and the complete lack of parameter semantics. An agent cannot determine whether this tool handles batch payloads, what 'profile' means, or when to prefer this over arsenkin_batch_estimate. The output schema exists, but that does not compensate for missing usage and parameter context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's lack of enrichment. It only names 'payload' without explaining its structure, and it never mentions the required 'profile' parameter or the accepted profile values. This is insufficient parameter guidance.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Validate an Arsenkin payload and estimate cost'. It also adds the key qualifier 'without a live call', which distinguishes it from submission tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling arsenkin_batch_estimate, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'without a live call' implies this is a preflight or dry-run estimate, giving some context for when to use it. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives like arsenkin_batch_estimate or arsenkin_prepare.

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