Retrieve a list of bounty tasks with optional status filtering. View available human-executed physical tasks to select and assign work.
浏览赏金任务列表
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": "list_bounties"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 返回数量 | |
| status | No | 状态筛选 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'browse', implying a read-only list operation, but gives no details about pagination, sorting, or side effects. Very limited behavioral disclosure.
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 concise sentence, but it is under-specified. It is appropriately short for the tool's simplicity, but lacks substance beyond a basic phrase.
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?
For a simple list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to mention important context like default behavior, max limits, or response format. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.
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%, with both 'limit' and 'status' having descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 '浏览赏金任务列表' clearly states the tool lists bounty tasks, with a specific verb (browse/list) and resource (bounties). It is distinct from siblings like get_bounty or create_bounty, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus query_bounty or get_bounty. The description only states the action without context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.