Skip to main content
Glama

Evaluation design check

wever_evaluation-design-check
Read-only

Agent Evaluation: submit one evaluation plan as supplied: the agent and task, when the plan was written and when the evaluation first ran, the task set with its size and where the tasks come from, each success criterion with the metric that measures it, each metric with what it measures, whether its computation is written down, its pass threshold, whether a pass is at least or at most it and where the threshold comes from (a requirement, the baseline’s score, a prior run, a published benchmark or nowhere), and the baseline with its scores. The signed report says criterion by criterion whether a metric the plan defines measures it, metric by metric whether it has a sourced threshold and a written computation, and whether a baseline is scored, and names no success criteria, every criterion no defined metric measures (quoting wording such as good, reasonable or as expected), an empty task set and criteria written after the first run, then every metric with no threshold, every threshold with no source, every unwritten computation, no baseline, an unscored baseline, an undescribed task set and a task set that is all generated, with the fix for each. This reads the design of one evaluation before it runs: whether a job’s delivered work meets its acceptance criteria is wever_deliverable-check, whether an implementation’s behavior matches its spec is wever_spec-drift-check and whether a benchmark claim’s figures match the source it cites is wever_benchmark-evidence-check. The checklist of a complete evaluation packet is wever_evaluation-snapshot on https://weverlabs.com/mcp-free. Verdict untestable_plan, design_gaps, design_unverified or design_complete. POST /api/evaluation-design-check. Reads only the material in the call: no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write. Paid URL: 0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact, with the shared 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days. Bind X-Wever-Wallet-Proof to the exact JSON arguments and the tool route. Returns a report with an Ed25519 signed receipt. Contract: /api/agent-evaluation-contract. Human page: https://weverlabs.com/agent-evaluation/.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "criteria": "<criteria>"
    },
    "name": "wever_evaluation-design-check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
planNo
labelNoOptional name recorded in the report.
tasksNo
metricsNoEach metric.
baselineNo
criteriaYesEach success criterion.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint), it discloses that no network, message, money movement or external write occurs, the paid price of 0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact, the 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days, the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding requirement, and the Ed25519 signed receipt plus verdict enum. These are exactly the cost, auth, and side-effect facts an annotation-only view would miss.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Inputs are front-loaded, which is the right ordering, but the middle section is written as long run-on clauses ('the signed report says criterion by criterion whether a metric the plan defines measures it, metric by metric whether it has a sourced threshold...') that take effort to parse. The pricing and endpoint sentences are justified, but the findings list and report description overlap and could be tightened.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a nested six-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, the shape of the returned report, the four possible verdicts, the absence of external side effects, cost, auth binding and the contract URL. An agent has everything needed to construct the call and interpret the result without opening further documentation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50%, but the prose compensates by explaining the relationships the schema cannot: criteria carry the metric that measures them, metrics carry a measures field, a computed flag, a direction (at least/at most) and a threshold_source whose five options are spelled out. Minor gaps remain — the optional 'label' and the plan 'name' fields are never mentioned — so it falls short of fully covering the six-parameter surface.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('submit one evaluation plan') and immediately enumerates the plan's components, so the agent knows exactly what is being evaluated. It then names the sibling tools it is not (wever_deliverable-check, wever_spec-drift-check, wever_benchmark-evidence-check) with the scope each covers, making disambiguation explicit rather than inferred.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states the timing condition ('reads the design of one evaluation before it runs') and routes to three named alternatives with the precise condition that selects each. It also points to wever_evaluation-snapshot for the packet checklist, covering the adjacent need an agent might otherwise mis-route.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources