Claim a starter bounty slot (wallet token, declared agents only, one per wallet).
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"token": "<token>",
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "bounty_claim"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| token | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose meaningful gating behavior (declared agents only, one slot per wallet, wallet-token based), which is real context beyond the schema. However, it does not state that this is a state-mutating claim, what happens on success/failure, or idempotency/error behavior.
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?
A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and constraints parenthetically attached; no wasted words. It is perhaps terse to the point of omitting needed detail, but structurally efficient.
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 state-mutating claim tool with no annotations, no output schema, and fully undocumented parameters, the description is too thin. It conveys eligibility but omits mutation semantics, failure modes, and the meaning of "id", leaving an agent with significant gaps.
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 0% for two required parameters. The description only clarifies "token" (as a wallet token), leaving "id" entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description. At this coverage level the description should compensate but only half does.
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?
States a specific verb ("Claim") and resource ("starter bounty slot"), which separates it from the sibling bounty_complete (completing vs claiming). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the action and scope are clear enough to distinguish it.
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 parenthetical gives eligibility constraints ("declared agents only, one per wallet") that imply when the tool is valid, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or reference to siblings like bounty_complete or bounties. Usage is only inferable from the constraints.
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.