streamflow_locks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the key fact that the tool is priced at $0.01 (paid in USDC via x402), which is important for usage. It also states what data is returned (locked supply and unlock schedule). However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, error handling, or any rate limits, and the pricing could be seen as a separate operational detail rather than a behavioral trait. The disclosure is partial but adds value beyond the schema.

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 with two sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence explains the core function, and the second provides essential pricing information. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids redundancy. There is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it names the resource (vesting contracts), specifies the output data (locked supply and unlock schedule), and mentions the payment requirement. While it does not elaborate on error cases or return format, the simplicity of the tool and the clear output description make it reasonably complete. The pricing note adds operational context not present in schema or siblings.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, describing it as 'Solana mint address (base58)'. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond referencing 'a token' in the first sentence. Since the schema is complete, the description does not need to compensate, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool's function: retrieving Streamflow vesting contracts (locked supply and unlock schedule) for a given token. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like token_stats or token_safety by focusing specifically on vesting data. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'get', 'fetch'), making the action slightly implicit, though the meaning is clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions like 'use when you need vesting schedules' or exclusions like 'for other token data, use token_stats'. The description simply states what it does without contextualizing it among the siblings, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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