Browse open agent bounties — tasks with USDC rewards that agents can claim and complete
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default: 20) | |
| status | No | Bounty status filter (open, awarded, expired) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Max results (default: 20, max: 50)"New value: +"Max results (default: 20)"Input schema / properties / status / descriptionPrevious value: -"Bounty status filter (default: open)"New value: +"Bounty status filter (open, awarded, expired)"Input schema / properties / status / enumPrevious value: -[
- "open",
- "claimed",
- "completed"
-]New value: +[
+ "open",
+ "awarded",
+ "expired"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Browse' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not clarify default behavior (e.g., whether all statuses are returned or only open ones), and the phrase 'open agent bounties' conflicts somewhat with the schema's broader status options. It also does not mention sorting, pagination, or claim mechanics.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, followed by the reward context. There is no redundant or filler content.
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 description conveys the core purpose and reward mechanism but omits the important nuance that the `status` filter allows viewing awarded and expired bounties, not just open ones. Given the absence of an output schema, the description also does not mention what fields each bounty result will contain, which could be relevant for an agent deciding whether to call the 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both `limit` and `status`. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which aligns with the baseline of 3.
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 uses a specific verb ('Browse') and resource ('agent bounties'), and adds useful context that these are tasks with USDC rewards. However, the word 'open' ambiguously suggests only open-status bounties, while the schema allows filtering by awarded and expired statuses, creating mild potential for misinterpretation.
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 a general sense that this tool is for browsing bounties, but it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of how the status filter could be used. No sibling differentiation or selection conditions are stated.
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.