List bounties on the board. Default: open bounties, newest first. Each carries a stated reward; the first accepted submission wins it. Use get_bounty for full detail including acceptance criteria.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| status | No | Filter by lifecycle state; default open | |
| category | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the default filter and sort order and explains the reward/acceptance semantics, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe pagination, rate limits, or what fields each listed bounty contains. 'List' implies a read but is not an explicit guarantee.
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?
Three short, purposeful sentences. The core action is front-loaded, followed by defaults and a pointer to the sibling tool. The reward sentence adds useful domain context but is not strictly necessary for invocation, so a small deduction from a perfect score.
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 list tool with three optional params, no annotations, and no output schema, the description gives just enough to make a basic call but leaves meaningful gaps: it does not describe the response format, pagination, or how category values behave. The pointer to get_bounty hints that list results are summaries, but this is not explicit.
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 only 33%, with status having a description while limit and category have none. The description adds 'newest first' (ordering) and confirms the default open status, but it does not explain what limit controls or the meaning/usage of category. Since coverage is low, the description fails to compensate adequately.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List bounties on the board.' It also distinguishes itself from get_bounty by stating that full detail including acceptance criteria is available there, so an agent can tell which tool to pick for summary vs. detailed views.
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?
It provides clear default behavior ('Default: open bounties, newest first') and explicitly directs the agent to get_bounty when full detail or acceptance criteria is needed. It does not exhaustively contrast with board_stats or other siblings, but the key cross-tool decision is covered.
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.