Retrieve ranked pages of bug-bounty program data across views such as scope, rewards, updates, status, payouts, and responses; filter and sort results to monitor and compare programs.
One ranked page of a view.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | ||
| tags | No | ||
| view | Yes | ||
| kinds | No | ||
| limit | No | 1-100 | |
| cursor | No | ||
| labels | No | ||
| period | No | 24h|7d|30d|90d|all (per view) | |
| direction | No | ||
| platforms | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails it. The word 'page' hints at cursor-based pagination, but there is no disclosure of permission requirements, ranking algorithm, default sort, rate limits, or return shape for a 10-parameter query tool.
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 single four-word sentence is technically concise with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized. It is front-loaded yet carries almost no information, leaving the definition effectively empty for a complex query tool.
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 10 parameters, only 20% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine from the description what the views mean, how ranking works, or how pagination is expected to behave.
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 only 20% and the description adds nothing about any parameter. The critical `view` enum (scope, rewards, updates, status, payouts, response, all) is entirely unexplained, and terms like `sort`, `direction`, and 'period (per view)' are left for the agent to guess.
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 is a bare noun phrase, 'One ranked page of a view,' with no verb and no statement of what entity is being ranked (programs, targets, payouts?). It conveys only that a paginated ranked listing is returned, and does nothing to distinguish it from siblings such as search_targets or program_history.
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 versus alternatives like search_targets, list_targets, or program_history. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no mention of how it relates to the views offered in the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.