Cancel a bounty

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the operation is free, the escrow is withdrawn on chain, and USDC is returned to the paying wallet. It does not state irreversibility, failure modes, or ownership/permission requirements beyond the implied 'you posted', which are notable gaps for a destructive on-chain action.

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?

Three short sentences with the cost fact front-loaded and the precondition before the on-chain effect. Every sentence carries information; the one-word 'Free.' opener is terse but purposeful.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the precondition and the financial consequence well enough to call it correctly. Missing permission/auth detail and the post-cancellation state keep it from being fully 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 says nothing about bounty_id (format, where to obtain it). The single parameter is self-explanatory from its name, so the cost is small, but the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap as the low-coverage rule requires.

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 and resource ('cancel a bounty') plus the two conditions that make it valid: you posted it and it is still open. This cleanly separates it from siblings like vangrid_post_bounty and vangrid_accept_submission without needing the schemas.

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 preconditions ('you posted', 'still open') tell the agent exactly when this tool applies, which is the core of usage guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative for the case where those preconditions fail (e.g., check vangrid_bounty_status first), so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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