claim_bounty

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Claim', implying a state-changing action, but it fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects, or idempotency. The agent has no insight into what happens when the tool is invoked.

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 extremely concise at two words, but conciseness should balance brevity with informativeness. Here, the under-specification undermines clarity, making it insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a terse description, the tool definition lacks completeness. It does not explain what constitutes a bounty, the effect of claiming, or how it fits among siblings. The agent is left 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?

The input schema provides descriptions for both parameters (market token address, round for early bounties) with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, but since the schema is self-explanatory, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Claim resolution bounty' states a verb and resource, indicating the tool claims a bounty. However, it lacks specificity about what kind of bounty (e.g., bug report bounty, market resolution bounty) and does not differentiate from sibling 'pm_claim_bounty', resulting in vague 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pm_claim_bounty. The description does not specify prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision support.

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