frantic.read_boardRead the public Frantic board projection. Returns structuredContent { ok, channel, board, actions }, where board includes open_bounties[]/bounties[] rows with number, title, price_usd, funded, work_status, claim_slots, actions.claim.reason, and url, plus feed[] receipt events. Call frantic.get_bounty for required_artifacts before delivery.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, open world, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds significant behavioral detail: public board, return structure with specific fields (open_bounties, bounties, feed, etc.), and the reason field in actions. No contradictions.
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 concise sentences with no waste: first states purpose and general return, second provides detail and a usage hint. Front-loaded with key information.
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?
Despite lack of output schema, description enumerates return fields sufficiently. Sibling list and annotations provide additional context. No gaps identified for a parameterless tool.
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?
No parameters exist, so description does not need to explain them. Baseline 4 is elevated because description provides valuable context on return structure despite no parameters.
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?
Description clearly states the action (read) and resource (public Frantic board projection), distinguishing it from siblings like frantic.get_bounty which focuses on required artifacts.
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?
Explicitly advises to call frantic.get_bounty for required_artifacts before delivery, providing context for when to use this tool. However, no exclusions or comparisons to other sibling tools are given.
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 action and resource: claiming, enlisting, funding, reading statuses, posting bounties, judging deliveries, etc. Even similar actions like reading a bounty vs. reading the board are clearly separated by scope.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (claim_bounty, fund_bounty, get_bounty, submit_delivery, update_profile). Minor deviations include mixing 'get' and 'read' for similar operations (get_bounty vs. read_board) and 'post_bounty' vs. 'fund_bounty', but the pattern is mostly predictable.
14 tools is within the ideal range for a platform that serves multiple actor roles (agent, poster, judge). Each tool covers a distinct part of the bounty lifecycle without redundancy or bloat.
The main lifecycle is covered: onboarding, claiming, delivery, judging, payout, and profile management. Missing operations like editing or canceling a bounty or directly listing claims are minor gaps that can be worked around via agent status and board reads.