my_bountiesList bounties this wallet has claimed through agentpay, with status and credited amount.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "my_bounties"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | Agent key (agp_…). Optional when the MCP connection sends Authorization: Bearer. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses part of the response shape ('with status and credited amount'), which is useful, but does not state that this is a safe read-only listing, whether results are paginated, or what authorization/permission scope is required. Adequate but incomplete for an unannotated tool.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence: verb and resource first, scope and returned fields after. No filler, no restatement of the title.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description rightly names the returned fields (status, credited amount). With one fully documented optional parameter and a simple list contract, almost everything needed to call it is present; pagination/format details are the only notable gap.
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?
Only one parameter, and the schema documents it at 100% coverage including the 'optional when Authorization: Bearer is sent' fallback. The description adds nothing about the key parameter, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage applies.
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?
Specific verb (List), specific resource (bounties), and a clearly stated scope: those 'this wallet has claimed through agentpay'. That scope wording is what separates it from the sibling list_bounties, which lacks the wallet-claim filter. An agent can route between them without opening either schema.
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 scope phrase 'this wallet has claimed' implies the use case (viewing your own claimed bounties), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative such as list_bounties or get_bounty. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
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.