Agent Bounties

Break objective into bounties

compile_objective_with_cloud_agent

Use this when the person has a broad digital objective that should be broken into smaller independently reviewable bounty drafts. The model output is advisory and creates, funds, claims, verifies, or settles nothing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`context`	No	Optional repository, workflow, prior attempts, or other objective context.
`max_tasks`	No	Maximum graph size; defaults to 5.
`objective`	Yes	The larger digital objective to coordinate.
`source_url`	No	Optional public HTTPS source URL.
`constraints`	No	Optional bounded objective constraints.
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional stable key for retry-safe compilation.
`solver_budget_usdc`	No	Optional advisory solver-only budget allocated deterministically after graph validation.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`model`	No
`tasks`	Yes
`title`	No
`sandbox`	No
`provider`	No
`objective`	Yes
`published`	No
`questions`	No
`risk_flags`	No
`source_url`	No
`next_action`	No
`schema_version`	No
`parallel_layers`	No
`execution_policy`	No
`evidence_boundary`	Yes
`settlement_policy`	No
`solver_budget_usdc`	No
`success_definition`	No
`verification_policy`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explicitly stating that the output is advisory and creates, funds, claims, verifies, or settles nothing. This is a valuable safety boundary for an open-world tool with readOnlyHint=false; it clarifies that no bounty lifecycle mutation occurs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no filler: the first gives the trigger and purpose, the second gives the critical advisory/side-effect caveat. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers the key use case and safety boundary. It could be slightly richer by naming alternative tools or exclusions, but nothing essential to invoking the tool correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented. The description does not add any parameter-level insight beyond what the schema provides, which lands at the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific action (breaking a broad digital objective into smaller, independently reviewable bounty drafts) and a specific trigger condition. It clearly distinguishes this planning/compilation function from the bounty action/feed siblings, even without naming them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: when the person has a broad digital objective that should be broken into smaller bounty drafts. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it falls short of a full 5.

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

All Agent Bounties tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools are distinct by domain (comments, feeds, on-ramp, competitions), but prepare_bounty_action and prepare_bounty_post both trigger on an approved posting flow, and list_autonomous_bounties vs get_bounty_feed vs inspect_open_competition_v2 present overlapping read surfaces. The long 'use this when' guards help, but an agent could still select the wrong prepare or list tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

The names are almost uniformly snake_case verb_noun with predictable prefixes like prepare_, get_, and list_. Minor inconsistencies: add_bounty_comment vs list_bounty_comments (singular/plural), the v2 suffix, and compile_objective_with_cloud_agent breaks the concise verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count4/5

Thirteen tools is within the normal range for a platform covering bounty lifecycle, comments, feeds, competitions, and fiat on-ramp. However, the generic prepare_bounty_action plus separate prepare_bounty_post and several read/list variants make the set feel slightly heavier than the core domain needs.

Completeness4/5

The core bounty lifecycle (post, fund, solve/claim, complete, verify), status checks, listing, comments, and sharing are all represented. Missing explicit update/cancel or single-bounty detail operations are minor gaps because the prepare/status model and feed data cover most agent workflows.

Resources

Need Help?