start_stream

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. It effectively describes key behaviors: it requires prior on-chain actions for Superfluid, verifies flows on-chain, locks network/token for micro-transfers, and creates pending ticks. However, it lacks details on error handling, response format, or rate limits, leaving some gaps in transparency.

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 purpose but becomes verbose with step-by-step instructions and implementation details. While informative, some sentences (e.g., specific contract addresses and token wrapping steps) may be overly detailed for a tool description, reducing conciseness without earning their place in guiding tool selection.

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 complexity of blockchain interactions and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, prerequisites, methods (Superfluid/micro-transfer), and network advice. However, it omits expected outputs or error scenarios, which is a minor gap for a tool with no annotations or output schema.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds marginal value by clarifying the sender_address role ('your wallet address that created the flow... or will send payments') and implying token defaults, but it doesn't provide significant additional semantics beyond what the schema offers, aligning with the baseline score.

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 purpose: 'Start a stream payment for an ACCEPTED stream job.' It specifies the verb ('Start') and resource ('stream payment') with the condition ('for an ACCEPTED stream job'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like pause_stream, resume_stream, or stop_stream that manage existing streams rather than initiating them.

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 description provides explicit usage guidelines: it states when to use it ('for an ACCEPTED stream job'), prerequisites ('you must FIRST create the on-chain flow, then call this to verify it'), and alternatives (Superfluid vs. micro-transfer methods). It also advises on network preferences ('Prefer L2s... for lower gas costs'), offering clear contextual guidance.

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