list_open_bounties

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that only open (unassigned, unresolved, not expired) bounties are listed and that rewards are in USDC. This covers key behavioral aspects for a read-only list tool, though it omits details like pagination or auth requirements.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words, efficient and scannable. Every element serves a purpose.

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 6 optional parameters, all described in schema, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context (scope, platform, reward type) for an agent to understand what the tool returns. Sibling tools listed for disambiguation.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so description adds no extra parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description's mention of 'open' and 'USDC' is context, not parameter specifics.

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?

Description clearly states 'List open bounties' with specific filtering criteria (unassigned, unresolved, not-yet-expired) and distinguishes from sibling tools (get_bounty vs list, get_reputation). The verb 'list' and resource 'open bounties' are specific.

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?

Description says 'Use this to find work to take on, or to survey the current market.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives like get_bounty for single items or provide negative guidance.

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