soul_bounties

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. The verb 'browse' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it only lists bounties and does not perform claims, nor does it mention any side effects or required permissions. It provides minimal transparency beyond purpose.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and key differentiator (USDC rewards) without any wasted words. It is easy to scan and fully serves its 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?

The tool is a simple browse operation with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description explains what the bounties are and that they can be claimed, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role. It could mention return format or default status behavior, but given the simplicity and well-documented schema, it is reasonably complete.

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% for both parameters (limit and status), so the description adds no additional parameter context. It mentions 'open' but does not clarify that status filtering is available or how limit works. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters well.

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 uses the specific verb 'browse' with the resource 'agent bounties' and adds key details about USDC rewards and claimability. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like soul_profile or search_products, none of which deal with bounties.

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?

The description clearly conveys that this tool is for browsing available agent bounties, giving clear context. While it doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, there is no overlapping sibling tool, so the usage context is unambiguous.

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