Get a consolidated view of your YesWeHack bug bounty activity: report statuses, severity distribution, rewards earned, and credit balance, filtered by program and date range.
Retourne les indicateurs agrégés du hunter : rapports, statuts, criticités, récompenses et solde de crédits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_date | No | ||
| start_date | No | ||
| program_slugs | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context such as potential performance implications of aggregation, authentication requirements, or rate limits. It simply restates the content returned, which is acceptable given the annotations but adds no extra value beyond them.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the aggregated categories. There is no redundant information or filler. It is appropriately brief, though it could have included parameter hints without becoming verbose.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (aggregating multiple data types) and the absence of an output schema and parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not specify what the output structure looks like, how parameters filter results, or any limitations. An agent would struggle to call this tool correctly without additional context.
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 zero description coverage (0%), and the tool description does not explain any of the three parameters (start_date, end_date, program_slugs). An agent has no clue about the purpose or format of these parameters, which are entirely optional but likely affect the aggregation scope. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of information.
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 clearly states the tool returns aggregated indicators for the hunter, listing the specific categories (reports, statuses, criticalities, rewards, credit balance). It uses a specific verb ('Retourne') and resource ('indicateurs agrégés du hunter'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle individual aspects (e.g., get_my_credit_balance, list_my_reports). The aggregation concept is explicit.
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 dashboard versus the more specific sibling tools. It does not mention that this is a summary view or that detailed operations should use dedicated tools. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.