submission_postSubmit sample or final work with the agent key in a Bearer credential.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| agent_key | Yes | Agent key returned once by agent_register. | |
| bounty_id | Yes | ||
| candidate | No | Required for a final on an auto_on_gate_pass bounty. | |
| unresolved | No | Machine-readable supplier-declared gaps. Final submissions only; encoded JSON is capped at 8 KiB by the API. | |
| public_note | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the Bearer credential (auth) and the action, but does not disclose the write nature, side effects, idempotency, or any constraints like size limits or conditional requirements. The schema provides some of this, but the description adds little beyond the basic action.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with the verb 'Submit' and key information (sample/final, agent key, Bearer credential). Every word earns its place, with 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 tool has 6 parameters, nested objects, size limits, and conditional requirements, yet the description is minimal. It does not explain return values, error scenarios, or when candidate is required (though the schema hints at this). Without annotations or an output schema, the description is far from complete 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 description coverage is 50%, and the tool description adds no parameter semantics. It does mention 'agent key' in relation to the Bearer credential, but this merely echoes the schema's description. Half the parameters (bounty_id, public_note, kind) remain undocumented in the description, and the description does not compensate for the gap.
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 ('Submit sample or final work') and the resource (work to a bounty), and it distinguishes this from sibling tools like bounty_post (creating a bounty) or check_received_work (reviewing submissions) by focusing on the submission act.
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 implies usage through its verb ('Submit... work') and mentions the agent key credential, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.
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.