bounty_counterPost or replace your price signal on an open bounty. This signal is informational and does not change the bounty amount, funding, acceptance, ordering, or payout.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_key | Yes | Agent key returned once by agent_register. | |
| bounty_id | Yes | Bounty id. | |
| amount_usd | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the action is informational, does not alter key bounty fields, and can replace a previous signal. However, it does not mention return values, error conditions, or any other side effects beyond replacement.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every word earns its place. No filler 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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain return values and prerequisites. It does not mention what the tool returns, error scenarios, or that the bounty must be open. The informational nature is covered, but key operational context is missing.
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 67% (agent_key and bounty_id described, amount_usd not). The description mentions 'price signal' but never explicitly ties it to amount_usd, leaving the meaning of that parameter under-explained. It adds little beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Post or replace your price signal on an open bounty.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like bounty_pledge by noting the signal is informational and does not affect bounty amounts, funding, acceptance, ordering, or payout.
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 gives clear context for when to use (when you have an open bounty and want to post/replace a price signal), and it excludes changing the bounty's financial/acceptance aspects. However, it does not name alternative tools for those actions, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but a few could be confused: 'needs_intake' and 'request_source' both accept natural language requests, and 'bounty_self_gate' vs 'check_received_work' both involve checking work against criteria. Overall, detailed descriptions help differentiate them.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools use verb_noun ('get_source', 'list_sources') while others use noun_verb ('bounty_get', 'capability_call'). There are also oddities like 'agent_register' and 'bounty_counter'. The mixed conventions are still readable but not predictable.
With 26 tools, the server exceeds the recommended 3-15 range and feels heavy. Many tools are specific, but the sheer number may overwhelm agents, and some could potentially be consolidated (e.g., subscription tools).
The domain is broad (bounties, capabilities, sources) and most core workflows are covered, but there are notable gaps: no explicit tool to accept a bounty submission, no unsubscribe or management for subscriptions, and no way to remove or deprecate a capability. These missing lifecycle operations could cause agent workarounds.