claim_bounty

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the action 'claim' but does not mention that this is a write/mutation operation, any on-chain implications, reversibility, or what happens after claiming. The only added context is the requirement for a wallet address, which is minimal.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no fluff. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 the tool's low complexity and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations or output schema, it does not explain the result of claiming, side effects, or how it fits into the overall workflow with sibling tools. This leaves some 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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter described adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it simply restates that an ID and wallet are needed. This meets the baseline of 3.

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 action: 'Claim a bounty to work on it.' The verb 'claim' is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like list_bounties, get_bounty, and submit_work. It also identifies the resource (a bounty).

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 implies the tool is used when you want to work on a specific bounty, and that you need the bounty ID and wallet address. However, it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like first looking up the bounty via get_bounty.

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