Fetches complete bounty details by ID, including metadata, escrow, sponsor reputation, deadline, and requirements checklist, to help you evaluate and complete a Gibwork bounty.
Fetch full bounty metadata, escrow details, sponsor reputation, deadline, and requirements checklist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Bounty ID or slug (e.g. "gibwork-hackathon-2026", "solana-blinks-mcp") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the shape of the returned payload, which is valuable given there is no output schema. It says nothing about read-only nature, permission requirements, or behavior for unknown/expired bounty IDs.
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 sentence that front-loads the verb and packs the return contents into a scannable list with zero filler. It is as short as it can be while still enumerating the payload.
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 one-parameter read tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, enumerating the returned fields is exactly the right compensating detail. What is missing (read-only confirmation, error handling) is minor for this complexity level.
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% and the single 'id' parameter is documented with concrete slug examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional semantics about ID resolution (ID vs slug equivalence) beyond what the schema states.
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 ('Fetch') and resource ('bounty metadata'), then enumerates the concrete payload (escrow details, sponsor reputation, deadline, requirements checklist). The singular, detail-oriented framing implicitly separates it from the plural listing sibling, though it never names that sibling.
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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. An agent can infer this is the detail lookup for a single bounty, but nothing tells it to prefer gibwork_list_bounties for discovery or what ID format failures look like.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.