bounty_my_posted

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the 50-result cap, the default non-terminal filter, the meaning of what's surfaced ('open for submissions', 'judging', 'needs winner accepted or payment proven'), the parallel-fetch + createdAt-desc sorting behavior of include_terminal, and that no authentication is required. That is substantially more than the schema states.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then default behavior, then the alternative modes — a logical order with short paragraphs. The closing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities' is tangential cross-promotion that doesn't help an agent invoke this 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing result volume (up to 50) and sort order, and by characterizing the state categories returned. It stops short of describing the per-bounty fields an agent would receive, but the behavioral picture is otherwise sufficient to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description goes further by explaining why 'active' is the default and what each terminal status selection is for, plus the parallel merge semantics of include_terminal. It doesn't enumerate the enum values itself, deferring to the schema, which is a reasonable division.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('List bounties posted by a BTC address') and clarifies the default address source. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like bounty_list (all bounties), bounty_submissions, and bounty_my_submissions (as a submitter).

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?

Gives clear default behavior (active, non-terminal, up to 50) and explicit conditions for alternatives: pass status='paid'/'cancelled'/'abandoned' for terminal states, or include_terminal=true for a combined view. It doesn't name the sibling tools an agent could use instead (e.g. bounty_list for a global feed), so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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