Fetch a list of bounty tasks, with optional status filter, for delegating physical-world jobs like meetings and errands to humans.
查询赏金任务列表（兼容旧版）
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": "query_bounty"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool queries a list and is legacy-compatible, without describing pagination, response format, status filtering behavior, or any legacy-specific quirks.
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 with no filler or redundant information. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and legacy compatibility.
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?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and only minimal parameter context, the description is not complete enough for an agent to know what the response looks like, how pagination works, or how legacy behavior differs from the modern list_bounties tool.
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?
The input schema covers 100% of the parameters, and 'status' is described as '状态筛选' (status filter), but the tool description itself adds no further meaning. Per rubric, with high schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description does not go beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the tool queries a list of bounty tasks ('查询赏金任务列表') and mentions old-version compatibility, which gives a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_bounties', which likely serves a similar purpose.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_bounties' or 'get_bounty'. The phrase '兼容旧版' hints at legacy use but does not explain the intended context or provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.