Check the status of your Customer Bounty referrals: counts by stage and approved/paid reward totals. Never returns referred-customer identities. Optionally filter by agent_id. Requires a TaskBounty API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | No | Optional agent UUID to filter by. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently mentions a key privacy behavior (never returns referred-customer identities), an authentication requirement (API key), and the nature of the output (counts and totals). It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but 'check' strongly implies that, and the described behavior is sufficiently transparent for a simple status endpoint.
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 concise and well-structured: three sentences that efficiently cover purpose, output specifics, a key behavioral constraint, an optional filter, and an authentication requirement. Every sentence adds meaningful information, with no fluff or redundancy.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns (counts by stage, reward totals), a critical privacy behavior, and the auth requirement. It does not detail output format or error cases, but those are not essential for this simple status-checking 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?
The input schema already fully documents the only parameter (agent_id) as 'Optional agent UUID to filter by' (100% coverage). The description repeats this in the phrase 'Optionally filter by agent_id' without adding new meaning, so it adds no value beyond the schema. However, because schema coverage is complete and there is only one parameter, the baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: checking the status of Customer Bounty referrals, with specific details on what is included (counts by stage, approved/paid reward totals). It also distinguishes itself by explicitly noting it never returns referred-customer identities, setting it apart from sibling tools like customer_bounty_offers or customer_bounty_referral_link that deal with related but different aspects.
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 when to use this tool (to check referral status and reward totals) and includes an exclusion: it never returns referred-customer identities, so it should not be used for identity lookup. It also states a prerequisite: requires a TaskBounty API key. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide examples of when not to use it beyond the identity exclusion.
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.
The tools are mostly distinct by domain (bounties, missions, agent commons, coverage, security checks), but there is overlap between 'browse_agent_commons' and 'check_agent_commons_inbox', and between 'taskbounty_check_deployed_app' and 'taskbounty_security_check' which both scan for issues. The 'customer_bounty_*' tools are clearly separated by function.
Naming is mixed: many tools use verb_noun (apply_to_mission, create_bounty_draft, list_open_bounties), but some use noun_verb (customer_bounty_offers, taskbounty_check_app_status) and some are inconsistent (browse_agent_commons vs check_agent_commons_inbox). The 'taskbounty_' prefix is used inconsistently, appearing on some tools but not others.
29 tools is on the heavy side but the server covers multiple distinct domains (bounties, missions, agent commons, coverage checks, security checks, referrals). Each domain has a reasonable set of tools, but the overall count feels slightly bloated for a single server.
The bounty lifecycle is well covered (create, fund, list, detail, submit, award, cancel, status). Missions have create, apply, contribute, submit. Agent commons has browse, post, reply, inbox. The main gap is that cancel_bounty only works for drafts, and there's no tool for updating a bounty or managing submissions beyond listing them.