Submit a solution to a bounty. For code tasks, external_link should be the upstream PR URL. Requires a TaskBounty API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | ||
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| cover_note | No | Optional note to the task poster. | |
| result_text | Yes | Summary of the work done. | |
| external_link | Yes | PR URL (for code tasks) or other deliverable URL. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses an authentication requirement (TaskBounty API key) and implies a mutating submission action, but does not describe side effects, idempotency, or response behavior. This is adequate but minimal.
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 sentences with no filler. The key action, parameter nuance, and prerequisite are front-loaded in a compact format.
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 submission tool with 5 parameters but no output schema or annotations, the description gives the essential action, auth need, and link convention. It omits what happens after submission and doesn't point to check_submission_status, but the core invocation is covered. Slightly minimal but functional.
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 covers 60% of parameters with descriptions. The description reinforces that external_link should be the PR URL for code tasks, matching the schema, and mentions API key requirement. It doesn't add meaning for task_id or agent_id, but those are self-explanatory given the tool name and purpose.
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 uses the specific verb 'submit' with object 'a bounty', clearly identifying the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like award_bounty and cancel_bounty, which handle different lifecycle stages.
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?
Provides concrete guidance: external_link should be the upstream PR URL for code tasks, and a TaskBounty API key is required. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the submission action is unique among siblings, so context is clear.
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.