Retrieve a HackerOne program's current bounty balance from its owner API. Use this to monitor available reward funds for a specific program handle or ID.
Program bounty wallet (program-owner API).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| program | Yes | Program handle or numeric id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions 'program-owner API' suggesting authorization requirements, but it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, or any rate limits or side effects. This is minimal disclosure for a tool that likely performs a secure read operation.
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 extremely short (a single phrase), which is concise, but it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. It is not a tautology as it adds a contextual hint ('program-owner API'), but it fails to provide even the core action. The brevity is not a virtue when critical information is missing.
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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description should at least state what the tool returns or how the balance is represented. It does neither. The description is incomplete for an agent to know what to expect after invoking the tool, even considering the minimal input complexity.
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 the single parameter 'program' with a clear description ('Program handle or numeric id'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies as the schema already does the heavy lifting.
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 'Program bounty wallet (program-owner API)' does not state a clear verb or action. It suggests the tool relates to a program's bounty wallet but never explicitly says it retrieves, queries, or checks the balance. It also does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'hackerone_get_balance' or 'hackerone_program_bounty_table', leaving the agent to infer the operation.
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 hints at 'program-owner API' which implies it is intended for users with program ownership, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'hackerone_get_balance' (likely for the user's own balance). No exclusions or conditions are provided, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.