yield_hunter_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses continuous operation, automatic deposits, confirmation waiting, retry/backoff behavior, default reserve semantics, and STX fee requirements. It omits some edge cases such as what happens if an instance is already running, but overall provides strong behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the core action and uses a numbered list for clarity. It is longer than ideal because the default settings partially duplicate the schema, but the structure is appropriate for a complex autonomous tool.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, zero annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the important operational context: wallet prerequisite, mainnet restriction, automation flow, fees, defaults, and a related discovery tool. It leaves minor gaps around return behavior and idempotency, but those are not critical for invoking it correctly.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description repeats the key defaults (threshold 10,000 sats, reserve 0, interval 10 minutes) but adds little syntax or meaning beyond what the schema 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 a specific verb and resource: starting autonomous yield hunting that monitors sBTC and deposits it into Zest Protocol. It also lists the exact automation behavior, making it easy to distinguish from yield_hunter_stop, yield_hunter_status, and yield_hunter_configure.

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 clearly states prerequisites (unlocked wallet via wallet_unlock) and a key constraint (mainnet only). It implies stopping via 'until stopped' and points to earning_opportunities, but does not explicitly contrast with yield_hunter_configure or yield_hunter_status.

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