crypto_impact_simulation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discharges the most important risk: it explicitly says 'Read-only PAPER simulation — no order is placed' and that it runs against the live L2 book. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or staleness of book data, so it is not fully transparent.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first front-loads purpose and outputs, the second immediately resolves the obvious safety question about order placement. No filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields. Combined with the no-side-effect statement, an agent has enough to call it correctly; minor gaps remain around error behavior and whether the simulation models market impact of the order itself.

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 the pair, side, size_usd and size_base semantics are already documented in the schema. The description restates order-sizing concepts ('fillable size') but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline case for a 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('pre-trade impact simulation against the live L2 book') and enumerates the exact metrics produced (VWAP fill price, slippage in bps, fillable size, fill probability). An agent immediately knows what it gets back, though no sibling (e.g. dex_price_summary) is named for contrast.

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?

'Pre-trade' establishes the decision context in which this tool belongs, and the second sentence makes clear it is a simulation only, with no order placed. It gives no explicit exclusions or alternative tools for cases where only a static price is needed, so it stops short of a 5.

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