bounty_paid

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so unusually well: it spells out every server-side verification rule on Hiro (tx anchored, sBTC contract call, sender = poster, recipient = winner STX address, amount >= rewardSats, byte-exact memo, tx time > acceptedAt - 60s), the anti-replay rule that a txid cannot pay two bounties, and the exact BIP-322 signing payload. This is behavior an agent could not possibly derive from the schema.

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 critical framing (what it does, who may call it) is front-loaded, and the numbered prerequisite sequence scans well. The closing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities to see how to put your assets to work' is unrelated promotional boilerplate that does not belong in a payment-proof tool description, which costs it the top score.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description supplies prerequisites, verification criteria, and signing details — enough for an agent to invoke correctly. The remaining gap is outcome reporting: it never says what a successful call returns (a receipt, a status change on the bounty) or what happens when verification fails, which matters more given there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 both parameters are already documented, and by baseline this would be a 3. The description earns above baseline by adding constraints not in the schema: the txid must be a confirmed/anchored transfer, and the transfer must carry the literal memo 'BNTY:{bountyId}' with matching recipient and amount — these are semantic requirements the parameter definitions do not state.

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 opening sentence names the exact action (prove payment), the resource (a bounty), and the required evidence (a confirmed sBTC transfer txid), plus the authorization scope 'Poster only.' It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like bounty_accept, bounty_submit, or bounty_get, which do not record payment proof.

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?

It gives an explicit ordered preflight checklist (read the payment hint from bounty_get, send sBTC via transfer_token with the exact memo, wait for confirmation via get_transaction_status, then submit) and names the tools to use at each step. The 'Poster only' restriction and the memo format 'BNTY:{bountyId}' are stated as hard conditions, not inferences.

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