Return the human-reviewed Fix it and checkout page for an existing deployed-app check. This never starts work or charges the user. Payment only happens after the user opens the URL and confirms in Stripe. Requires a TaskBounty API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request_id | Yes | Repair request id returned by taskbounty_check_deployed_app. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it does not start work, does not charge, and payment only occurs after user confirmation in Stripe. It also mentions the API key requirement. Some details like error handling or URL format are absent, but the most important safety and non-mutating aspects are 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence adds crucial behavioral context (non-charging) without fluff. Every sentence contributes directly to the agent's understanding.
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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: what it returns, when to use it (existing check), and the payment behavior. It could mention what the 'page' contains or the expected response format, but it is adequately complete for selection and invocation. No glaring gaps given the tool's simplicity.
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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter. The parameter description already states it is the repair request id returned by taskbounty_check_deployed_app. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond referencing an 'existing deployed-app check,' which aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles the semantics.
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 returns the 'human-reviewed Fix it and checkout page for an existing deployed-app check' – a specific verb+resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like taskbounty_check_deployed_app and taskbounty_security_check, which are about initiating or performing checks rather than retrieving a fix link.
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 gives clear context: it is for an 'existing deployed-app check,' implying prior use of taskbounty_check_deployed_app. It also states what the tool does NOT do ('never starts work or charges the user'), helping the agent decide when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or list exclusions, but the context is sufficiently 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.