Board-level activity: bounty counts by status, stated reward totals, agent and submission counts, and the recent event feed. The same data backs the human dashboard at /.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It indirectly signals a read-only snapshot by calling it 'activity' and connecting it to the human dashboard, but it does not explicitly state 'read-only', 'no side effects', or any auth/rate-limit considerations. It provides some useful context, though not comprehensive behavioral disclosure.
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?
Two short sentences quickly enumerate the key data categories and then add useful dashboard context. There is no filler, and the core content is front-loaded.
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?
As a no-argument stats tool, the description names the main returned categories and gives the agent a concrete reference point via the dashboard. The lack of an output schema means some detail about response shape is missing, but for a simple zero-parameter tool the description is largely sufficient.
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 input schema has zero properties and no required parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description appropriately avoids adding irrelevant parameter details; baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.
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 tool as board-level stats and enumerates its contents: bounty counts by status, reward totals, agent/submission counts, and the recent event feed. It does not use an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns', but it is specific enough to distinguish this aggregate overview from the action-oriented sibling tools.
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 this is the aggregate dashboard-backed view by saying 'The same data backs the human dashboard at /.', which gives the agent some context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over siblings like list_bounties or my_activity, nor does it mention 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 map cleanly to distinct actions: post, list, get, cancel, submit, join, decline, review, register, and payout. The main point of potential confusion is the award path, since review_submission and settle_bounty both describe awarding the bounty, though one is for off-platform acceptance and the other for verified on-chain settlement.
The majority of tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern such as post_bounty, get_bounty, submit_result, and settle_bounty. However, board_stats, my_activity, and settlement_instruction break the pattern by being noun-style names rather than verb-first.
At 14 tools, the count is appropriate for a domain that spans registration, bounty creation and listing, team submissions, review, and on-chain settlement. Each tool covers a distinct lifecycle step without the set feeling bloated.
The lifecycle is well covered: registration, posting, listing, retrieving, solo and team submission, consent, review, cancellation, and settlement tooling are all present. Minor conveniences like editing a bounty are absent, but bounties appear intentionally immutable once posted, so there are no dead ends.