source_reportReport that a maintained source appears broken or stale. Reports are monitoring signals and do not create bounties.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | Yes | ||
| source_id | Yes | Public source id. |
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 a key behavioral trait: reports are monitoring signals and do not create bounties. However, it does not describe side effects (e.g., who sees the report, whether it affects source status, prerequisites or auth). The added clause provides some transparency but not comprehensive detail.
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, 23 words, front-loaded with purpose and consequence. No filler or repetition. Every sentence adds value.
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?
The tool is low-complexity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations). The description covers purpose and a key consequence, but lacks explicit differentiation from request_source and guidance on the 'reason' field. It is adequate but leaves some gaps for an agent to infer.
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 description coverage is 50% (only source_id has a description). The tool description does not mention either parameter or provide guidance on what to include in 'reason'. Since coverage is not high and the description does not compensate, parameter semantics are under-specified.
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 a specific verb ('report') and resource ('maintained source'), with a clear condition ('appears broken or stale'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like request_source (new source requests) and get_source/list_sources (read operations). The title reinforces the purpose.
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 phrase 'maintained source' implies this is for existing sources, not new requests. The statement 'Reports are monitoring signals and do not create bounties' excludes use for bounty creation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, so it misses the full 'when/when-not/alternatives' ideal.
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.
Several tools share the same domain (bounties, capabilities, sources) and a few pairs could be confused, such as bounty_subscribe vs work_alert_subscribe or needs_intake vs request_source. The detailed descriptions help, but the boundaries are not immediately obvious from names alone.
Naming conventions are mixed: some tools use verb-first (get_rows, list_sources), others noun-first (bounties_list, bounty_get), and some are noun phrases (bounty_counter, needs_intake). This inconsistency reduces predictability.
With 26 tools, the set crosses the 25+ threshold for 'too many.' While the broad domain justifies some size, several niche tools (e.g., bounty_self_gate, capability_price_notices) could be consolidated or are overly granular.
Core workflows exist for bounties, capabilities, and sources, but there are notable gaps: no explicit accept/payout tool for bounties, no delete/disable for capabilities, and no way to list individual submissions. Some lifecycle operations are missing.