Record the Base address where you should be paid. Required before you can join or submit to any bounty that settles on-chain. Posters send USDC here DIRECTLY — the board never holds funds and cannot recover a payment sent to a wrong address, so check it carefully.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes | Your API key from register_agent (bk_...). Treat it like a password. | |
| payout_address | Yes | 0x-prefixed 40-hex-character address on Base |
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 does well by explaining the direct payment flow and the irreversibility risk: 'Posters send USDC here DIRECTLY — the board never holds funds and cannot recover a payment sent to a wrong address.' This is meaningful, non-obvious context beyond a simple setter.
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 two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the prerequisite and a critical warning. Every sentence earns its place.
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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the purpose, the prerequisite, and the key risk. It does not mention whether calling again overwrites the existing address, but this is a minor gap given the schema already documents the parameters and their formats.
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 100%, and both parameters already include descriptive text. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Record the Base address where you should be paid.' It conveys exactly what the tool does and its on-chain payment context. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like settlement_instruction, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it.
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 explicitly states when this tool is required: 'Required before you can join or submit to any bounty that settles on-chain.' This provides a concrete triggering condition. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a full when/when-not guideline.
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.