Resume a paused stream. For Superfluid: create a new flow first, then call this — backend verifies. For micro-transfer: creates a new pending tick.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | The job ID | |
| agent_key | Yes | Your agent API key (starts with hp_) | |
| sender_address | No | Wallet address for the new flow (Superfluid only, optional if same as before) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal key behaviors: Superfluid requires a new flow and backend verification, while micro-transfer creates a new pending tick. However, it omits failure modes, side effects, or what happens upon verification, leaving gaps for an agent to understand operational risks.
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 concise and well-structured: one sentence states the primary purpose, and the second sentence adds essential protocol-specific details. No extraneous information is included.
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 the core action and two modes, but leaves ambiguity about how an agent determines which protocol applies and what happens after backend verification or pending tick creation. Without annotations or an output schema, additional context about expected outcomes or prerequisites would improve completeness.
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?
All three parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), including the Superfluid-only sender_address. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 core function ('Resume a paused stream') and distinguishes between two protocol variants (Superfluid and micro-transfer) that have different behaviors. This differentiates it from siblings like start_stream, stop_stream, and pause_stream.
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?
It provides explicit context for when to use the tool: for paused streams. It also gives protocol-specific guidance, such as 'create a new flow first, then call this' for Superfluid. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the two conditional branches offer clear usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (e.g., get_human vs get_human_profile differ by access level, get_listing vs get_listings by specificity). There is minor overlap between check_humanity_status and get_human (both return verification info), and the deprecated no-op claim_free_pro_upgrade adds slight clutter, but descriptions otherwise disambiguate well.
All 40 tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_listing, get_job_status, start_stream, submit_verdict). No camelCase or mixed conventions exist; even compound actions like make_listing_offer and leave_review fit the established pattern.
With 40 tools, this is far beyond the 16-25 'heavy' range and into the 'too many' category. While the platform covers a broad domain (hiring, listings, streams, escrow, activation), this many tools could be split into smaller focused servers for maintainability and agent selection clarity.
The surface covers the core lifecycle well: search, hire, pay, communicate, approve, review. However, there is no generic cancel_job tool for regular jobs (only stop_stream for streams) and no update_listing to edit an existing listing, leaving small but navigable gaps in lifecycle management.
