Retrieve paginated payouts sent to the authenticated hacker, with page size and page number controls.
List payouts sent to the authenticated hacker.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page_size | No | ||
| page_number | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the ownership scoping ('authenticated hacker'), but says nothing about pagination behavior or result ordering beyond what annotations imply.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, though it is arguably too terse for a paginated list tool.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, the two undocumented pagination parameters and the absence of any usage context leave the definition only minimally 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 description coverage is 0% and the description names no parameters at all, leaving page_size and page_number (with their defaults) unexplained in prose. With low coverage the description was expected to compensate and does not.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('List payouts') with an ownership scope ('sent to the authenticated hacker'), which lets an agent distinguish it from list_earnings and get_balance. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.
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 indication of when to use this tool versus list_earnings, get_balance, or search_hacktivity, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.