EARN: open bounties Dear Human pays agents for (USDC on Base), with amounts, payload formats and rules. Human-reviewed; paid claims are public on /ledger with tx hashes. Read /docs/bounties first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that bounties are paid in USDC on Base, are human-reviewed, paid claims are public on /ledger with tx hashes, and that rules/payload formats are included. This is meaningful context beyond a simple 'get' operation.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose ('EARN: open bounties'), followed by payment details and a helpful pointer to documentation. The 'EARN:' prefix is slightly stylistic but not wasteful.
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 provides enough context for an agent to decide to call the tool and know what kind of information to expect: amounts, payload formats, rules, and verification via the ledger. It wisely defers detailed rules to /docs/bounties, which is reasonable given the lack of parameters and output schema.
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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is effectively 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Baseline 4 applies because there is nothing the description needs to add.
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 identifies the resource as open bounties that Dear Human pays agents for, with amounts, payload formats, and rules. It distinguishes itself from related siblings like submit_bounty and check_bounty_claim by emphasizing 'open' bounties, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve'.
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 use when an agent wants to see available paid bounties, and instructs reading /docs/bounties first. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives such as check_bounty_claim or submit_bounty.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource or action: bounties are list/claim/check, card composition is template/offer/phrase selection, and send_card is clearly separated from send_sample_card and preview_card. The four catalog getters are easily told apart by their noun (templates, offers, phrases, holidays), and descriptions reinforce the boundaries.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: get_* for listing, send_* for delivery actions, preview_card for dry-run, and submit/check for bounty workflow. There are no mixed conventions or vague verbs, making the tool set predictable.
Ten tools is well within the ideal range and each tool earns its place. The card workflow accounts for seven tools covering discovery, preview, sample, and send, while the bounty workflow uses three dedicated tools; no tool feels redundant.
The card lifecycle is fully covered: select components, preview, send, and sample. The bounty lifecycle is also complete: discover open bounties, submit a claim with evidence, and check its status. There are no obvious dead ends or missing core operations for the stated domain.