get_microstream_gate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the data window (90 days on Base L2), the threshold (1.5), the release cap (5 USDC/day), the per-verdict outcome (release at requested rate / zero release with principal preserved / transient pause due to one-off inflow), and explicitly states no funds ever move. It stops short of stating auth requirements, rate limits, or latency.

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 definition is front-loaded with the tool ID and core purpose, and most sentences carry real information about verdict semantics. But it ends abruptly mid-sentence ('...an AgentWorld agent name with'), which is a structural defect, and the published/invention-number framing adds noise an agent does not need.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does an unusually good job describing the return payload (ratio, threshold, verdict, and the meaning of each verdict state), which is exactly what is needed here. The main gaps are the truncated input-format sentence and the undocumented 'stream_days' parameter, both of which leave invocation details underspecified.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and mostly does not. It only partially explains 'subject' ('a 0x Base address or an AgentWorld agent name') and the sentence is truncated mid-clause, so the agent cannot tell whether other forms are accepted. 'stream_days' is never explained, and 'rate_usdc_day' is only obliquely referenced via the 5 USDC/day cap, not its interaction with the cap.

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 verb and resource: return the SolvScore liquidity gate verdict for a USDC micro-stream advance to an agent. It names the exact outputs (cash-flow ratio over 90 days on Base L2, 1.5 threshold, gate verdict) and enumerates the three verdict states, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_solvency_ratio or solvscore_repgate without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the framing ('gate verdict for a micro-stream advance') and by the non-custodial, decision-support framing, which tells the agent this is a pre-flight check rather than a fund-moving action. However, it never explicitly says when to call this versus get_solvency_ratio, underwrite_agent_loan, or solvscore_repgate, and there are no stated preconditions or exclusions.

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