Create a Stripe Checkout session for funding a draft bounty. Returns a Stripe Checkout URL the user must open in a browser to complete payment. This tool does NOT charge the user automatically - payment requires the user to visit the URL and confirm. Requires a TaskBounty API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | The draft task id to fund. |
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 transparently states that this tool does NOT charge automatically, that the user must open the returned URL, and that an API key is required. It also notes the draft bounty context. It could add details about idempotency or side effects, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.
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 three sentences, all valuable: it states the primary action, explains the return value, clarifies the payment behavior, and mentions the API key requirement. No redundancy or fluff; front-loaded with the main purpose.
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 having no output schema, the description explains the return value (Stripe Checkout URL). With a single simple parameter and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, the draft bounty requirement, the checkout flow, and the API key prerequisite. This is complete for a straightforward payment-initiation 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 schema already describes the single parameter task_id as 'The draft task id to fund.' The description reinforces the draft aspect but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not compensate or expand on parameter meaning.
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 specific action: 'Create a Stripe Checkout session for funding a draft bounty.' This is a distinct verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like award_bounty or cancel_bounty. It also clarifies the purpose is to initiate funding via Stripe, not to award or cancel.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when funding a draft bounty. It also explains the payment flow (user must visit URL) and the requirement of a TaskBounty API key. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among siblings, just implying the use case through the phrase 'for funding a draft bounty.'
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.