stackspot_start_pot

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the platform-contract routing, mainnet-only availability, unlocked-wallet requirement, and time-window constraint. It stops short of stating that this is an irreversible on-chain state change with gas cost, or what the call yields on success/failure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then layered preconditions in short paragraphs that each add information. The trailing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities...' is promotional filler unrelated to invoking this tool and costs it a point.

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?

For a single-parameter, no-output-schema, unannotated mutation, the description covers the critical gating facts an agent needs (full pot, prepare phase, unlocked wallet, mainnet). It leaves out downstream effects (whether the pot begins stacking immediately after) and cost/failure behavior, but nothing blocks a correct call.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage, including the exact same bare-vs-fully-qualified example. The description's 'Use a bare contract name ... or a fully-qualified identifier' restates the schema rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 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?

States a specific action (trigger/start stacking for a pot) on a specific resource (Stackspot pot via the stackspots platform contract), and scopes it to pots that have reached their participant limit. This clearly separates it from siblings like stackspot_join_pot, stackspot_get_pot_state, and stackspot_claim_rewards.

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?

Gives strong preconditions: the pot must be full, the call must happen during the PoX prepare phase, any participant may call it, and a wallet must be unlocked. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives (join vs. cancel vs. claim) to route an agent away from this tool, which keeps it just 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.