Request a bounty assignment to a contributor for a GitHub issue. Returns a confirm_code the user must post on GitHub to authorize execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | Yes | GitHub repo in owner/repo format | |
| token | Yes | Token symbol: USDC or WETH | |
| amount | Yes | Bounty amount | |
| contributor | Yes | GitHub username of the contributor to assign | |
| issue_number | Yes | GitHub issue number | |
| github_username | Yes | GitHub username of the project owner |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) by explaining the return of a confirm_code and the need for the user to post on GitHub for authorization, revealing the request's asynchronous nature.
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, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and resource, the second adds critical return and follow-up 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?
While the tool has 6 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return value and user action. However, it lacks details on timeout, error scenarios, or what happens after posting, which could be important for a request 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so descriptions in the schema are sufficient. The tool description does not add extra parameter details beyond what is already in the schema.
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 verb ('Request') and resource ('bounty assignment for a GitHub issue'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like check_pending or get_project_status.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other request tools (e.g., request_buy_stock). The description implies a two-step process but does not explicit prerequisites or context.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: informational gets/lists, action-oriented requests with confirm_code, and a status checker. No two tools overlap in function; e.g., get_stock_price vs get_rwa_portfolio differentiate price vs holdings.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_ for retrieval, list_ for enumeration, request_ for actions requiring authorization, and check_ for status. No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
16 tools cover the full scope of Gitbank's functionality—viewing balances, portfolios, prices, transactions, and initiating deposits, withdrawals, swaps, stock trades, bounty assignments, and token launches. The count is well-proportioned for a complex financial/project management server.
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for querying and initiating actions, but lacks a tool to cancel pending requests or to directly confirm actions (confirmation happens externally via GitHub). Minor gap, but core workflows are supported.
