get_rowsUp to 8 sample rows from the last run of a source. Every row is dated and attributed. Use the REST rows endpoint with an instant free key for more.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Sample rows (default 8, max 8). | |
| source_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses useful behavioral details: rows are limited to 8, come from the last run, and are dated/attributed. It does not mention read-only status or error cases, but for a simple sample retrieval, this is adequate.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence adds an actionable alternative. No redundant words 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 read tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the core behavior, the limit, and the way to obtain more data. It lacks details on edge cases like empty results, but that is minor for this complexity.
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 coverage is 50%: limit is described in the schema, and source_id is self-explanatory from its name. The description's 'up to 8' reiterates the schema's max, adding no new semantic depth. The 'sample' and 'last run' context applies to the output, not the parameters.
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 returns up to 8 sample rows from the last run of a source, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_source (source metadata) and list_sources (source list). The title is vaguer but the description adds specificity.
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 explicitly points to the REST rows endpoint as an alternative for getting more than 8 rows, providing an alternative outside the tool. However, it does not clarify when to prefer this tool over sibling tools like get_source or list_sources, so the guidance is partial.
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.