x402-bounties: Cross-platform bounty aggregator. 🆓 5 free trial calls per signed wallet
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "x402-bounties"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionRemoved value: -"Limit to process"Input schema / properties / q / descriptionRemoved value: -"Q to process"Input schema / properties / query / descriptionRemoved value: -"Query to process"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a useful operational fact (5 free trial calls per signed wallet, implying a paid/auth-gated service), but says nothing about read vs. write semantics, rate limits, failure modes, or what data comes back.
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?
Very short and front-loaded, but one of the two sentences is pure promotion/billing text rather than functional information. It is concise but under-informative rather than efficiently dense.
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?
No output schema, no annotations, and three undocumented parameters mean the description should do far more than it does. Only the trial-call billing note adds unique context; an agent still cannot tell what the tool returns or how to shape a query.
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?
All three parameters (q, limit, query) have 0% schema description coverage and the description explains none of them. It is not even clear how the overlapping 'q' and 'query' parameters differ, which is exactly the ambiguity the description should resolve.
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 identifies the resource (bounties) and scope (cross-platform aggregator), so an agent can guess this searches or lists bounties. However, it never states a verb (search/list/fetch) and gives no differentiation from the many other x402 aggregator-like tools, leaving the actual operation to inference.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what input it expects, or which sibling to prefer. The only conditional statement is a billing note about free trial calls, which does not help an agent decide whether this tool fits a given task.
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.