bounty_pledgeRecord a pledge intent and receive its payment instructions. Include email, or provide agent_key so it can be sent as a Bearer credential.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | Required without agent_key. | ||
| agent_key | No | 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 must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that this records an intent (not an immediate payment) and that agent_key is used as a Bearer credential. However, it does not explain reversibility, consequences, or what happens if neither email nor agent_key is provided, leaving some ambiguity.
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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the identity options. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition.
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 description covers the core purpose and the fact that payment instructions are returned, which is key since there is no output schema. However, it leaves gaps about whether email/agent_key is truly required (schema marks them optional) and about any side effects or limits beyond the schema's constraints.
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 description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining that agent_key is sent as a Bearer credential and that email and agent_key are alternatives. This clarifies the relationship between the parameters, even though bounty_id and amount_usd are straightforward from 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 clearly states the action ('Record a pledge intent') and the outcome ('receive its payment instructions'), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like bounty_post and bounty_withdraw by focusing on the pledge and payment instruction aspect.
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 the tool (to pledge to a bounty and get payment instructions) and explains the two identity options (email or agent_key). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is sufficient for most agents.
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.