post_task

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that funds are NOT charged at post, that budget is frozen later at authorize_task, that deployFee is a separate non-refundable fee tx, that settlement is limited to a non-custodial POOL escrow, and the specific 422 settlement_unavailable error for non-real tokens.

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 dense single paragraph with front-loaded purpose, structured qualifiers, and backticked param names. Every sentence contributes essential information—funding model, timing of charges, return payload, fee structure, and settlement constraints—without fluff.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully covers return values (task id, authIntent, deployFee), the required next step (authorize_task), fee details, and error conditions. It also explains the FCFS bounty model and settlement rails, making it complete for a complex 12-parameter 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?

Description adds significant meaning beyond schema for key params: reward_usd is the total budget while quantity is the number of identical units, each unit holding reward_usd/quantity with a per-unit minimum of $0.01. It also explains pay_token settlement options (USDC/BNKR/GITLAWB) and invalid tokens. Schema coverage is 75%, so remaining params are already documented, but these enrichments are valuable.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Fund a quest on the engagement marketplace (an FCFS pool bounty).' It clearly differentiates from siblings by noting 'NO direct hire and NO agent-picks-human — every quest is an open bounty,' and clarifies the action is creating a task that returns an id.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context: 'you freeze a budget, ANY eligible verified-X human submits first-come-first-served.' It excludes direct hire/agent-picks flows and explicitly directs the follow-up step: 'pass BOTH to authorize_task.' It also warns about invalid token/config returning 422, which is a clear usage constraint.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.