Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_governance_proposalsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the output takes. The description is minimal and lacks essential operational details for a tool that likely interacts with governance systems.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is extremely concise—just three words—and front-loaded with the core action. There is zero wasted language, making it efficient for quick comprehension. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for a governance tool. It doesn't explain what 'governance proposals' entail, what data is returned, or any behavioral traits. For a tool that likely returns structured governance data, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'status' fully documented in the schema (including enum values and default). The description mentions 'active' proposals, which aligns with the default value but doesn't add any semantic context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('active governance proposals'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It specifies the scope ('active') which helps distinguish it from other governance-related tools that might exist, though no direct siblings exist in the provided list. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from hypothetical alternatives like 'get_all_governance_proposals' or 'get_proposal_details'.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, dependencies, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over others. With no sibling tools directly overlapping in function, this is less critical, but still a gap in usage context.

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

• get_transactionC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves details but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'details' include (e.g., status, timestamps). This leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' entail or potential behavioral aspects, making it inadequate for a tool that likely returns complex transaction data, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  The description doesn't add meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage and clearly documents the 'hash' parameter. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics without extra description.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific transaction'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools that might also retrieve transaction data, as none are listed among the siblings provided.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as whether it's for confirmed transactions only or if other tools handle batch queries.

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

• get_validator_setB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' information (implying a read operation) but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or cached data, or what format the information comes in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple read operation and is front-loaded with the essential information.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'validator set information' includes, whether it's paginated, how current 'current' is, or what the return format looks like. For a tool that presumably returns structured data about validators, more context is needed.

  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?

  The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters since none exist, which is correct. Baseline would be 4 for 0-parameter tools that don't mislead about parameters.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('current validator set information'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like get_chain_status or get_governance_proposals, but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_chain_status or get_dex_state. There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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

• get_chain_statusB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or cached data, or what happens on errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Get current chain status') and adds specifics ('including block height and chain ID'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate for a basic read operation. It specifies what information is retrieved, which helps the agent understand the output. However, without annotations or an output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., error handling) and return format, leaving some gaps in completeness.

  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?

  The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, but it correctly indicates no inputs are required. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the description aligns with the schema's lack of inputs.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('current chain status'), specifying what information is included ('block height and chain ID'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_dex_state or get_transaction by focusing on chain-level metadata rather than DEX data, governance, or specific transactions. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., get_validator_set).

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for retrieving chain metadata, but it doesn't state when to prefer this over other tools (e.g., for checking chain health vs. querying transactions) or mention any prerequisites. This leaves the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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

• get_dex_stateB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what format the results are in. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and earns its place by clearly stating what the tool does.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what data is retrieved but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication or result format, making it minimally viable for this context.

  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?

  The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter documentation in the description. The baseline for this scenario is 4, as the description appropriately avoids redundant parameter details.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current DEX state including latest batch auction results'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_chain_status or get_governance_proposals, which prevents a perfect score.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_chain_status or get_transaction. It lacks explicit context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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