trollbridge-mcp

bridge_bounties

Fetch open agent-worthy bounties from aibtc, Taskmarket, and Superteam, refreshed every 6 hours. Calls cost $0.02 USDC via x402; unpaid requests return payment instructions.

Instructions

Mini's TrollBridge — ALL open bounties worth an agent's time (aibtc, Taskmarket, Superteam), refreshed every 6 hours. TOLLED: $0.02 USDC per call on Base or Solana via x402. If you cannot pay, this tool returns the 402 payment instructions instead of data. Optional limit 1-200.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "bridge_bounties"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Max items to return (1-200). Default 50.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses paid access ($0.02 USDC on Base or Solana via x402), the failure mode (402 instructions instead of data), and a 6-hour refresh cadence. Returned fields and caching semantics beyond the refresh interval are not described.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and sources, then cost and failure behavior. A small amount of branding ('Mini's TrollBridge') is filler but does not obscure the operative information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With one optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to decide and pay: coverage, cadence, cost, and the 402 fallback. It could say more about the shape of returned bounty items, but the essentials are present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single optional limit parameter, so the schema already documents range and default. The description's 'Optional limit 1-200' merely restates that; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource (open bounties) with named sources (aibtc, Taskmarket, Superteam) and a refresh cadence. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like bridge_opportunities or bridge_deadlines without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Clear context for when the tool is useful ('worth an agent's time') and an explicit access condition: it costs $0.02 USDC and returns 402 instructions if payment isn't possible. It does not compare itself against sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server