Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_hackathonsC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'optional cache usage' but doesn't explain cache behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens when cache is enabled/disabled. This leaves significant gaps for a search tool with 11 parameters.

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

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. However, given the complexity (11 parameters, no schema descriptions), it might be too brief to be fully helpful, though it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

  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?

  For a tool with 11 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or the semantics of key parameters, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so parameters like 'oppstatus', 'region', 'payment', etc., are completely undocumented in the schema. The description only generically mentions 'filters, sorting, pagination, and optional cache usage', failing to explain what each parameter means or how they interact, providing minimal compensation for the coverage gap.

  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 ('Search') and resource ('Unstop hackathons'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_hackathons_by_location', which could cause confusion about when to use each.

  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 like 'search_hackathons_by_location'. The description mentions 'filters, sorting, pagination, and optional cache usage', but this describes capabilities rather than usage context or exclusions.

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

• search_hackathons_by_locationC
  2.8/5.0
  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 mentions the tool finds 'offline' hackathons, which is useful context, but doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what happens with invalid locations, rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior (despite having page/per_page parameters).

  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 conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information about what the tool does.

  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?

  For a tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the purpose of most parameters, doesn't describe the return format, and provides minimal behavioral context. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional information.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  The description mentions 'radius' and 'city, address, or campus' which partially explains the 'location' and 'radius_km' parameters. However, with 11 total parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain the purpose of the other 9 parameters (region, payment, teamsize, usertype, search, sort, direction, page, per_page), leaving most parameters undocumented.

  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: 'Find offline Unstop hackathons within a radius of a city, address, or campus.' It specifies the verb ('Find'), resource ('offline Unstop hackathons'), and scope ('within a radius'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'search_hackathons' tool, which appears to be a more general search function.

  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 minimal usage guidance. It implies this tool should be used for location-based searches ('within a radius of a city, address, or campus'), but offers no explicit comparison to the sibling 'search_hackathons' tool, no guidance on when not to use it, and no mention of prerequisites or alternatives.

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

• get_hackathon_detailsC
  2.9/5.0
  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 'Fetch full details' which suggests a read-only operation, but it doesn't cover important aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'full details' entails (e.g., format, depth). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

  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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 incomplete for a tool that fetches data. It doesn't explain what 'full details' includes, potential response formats, or error cases. For a read operation with no structured output documentation, more context is needed to guide an agent effectively.

  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 adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It clarifies that 'hackathon_id' is an integer used to fetch details for a single hackathon, but doesn't provide additional context like valid ranges or examples. With one parameter and low schema coverage, this is a baseline adequate explanation but lacks depth.

  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 ('Fetch full details') and resource ('for a single Unstop hackathon by ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_hackathons' or 'search_hackathons_by_location', which likely return multiple results rather than single-item 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 minimal guidance by implying usage when you have a specific hackathon ID, but it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_hackathons' for broader queries or other siblings. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is included.

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

• refresh_cacheB
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a write operation ('refresh') but doesn't specify permissions, side effects, or performance impacts. No details on rate limits, success/failure responses, or data consistency are included, leaving significant 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 with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action and resource. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.

  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 tool's mutation nature (implied by 'refresh'), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what 'refresh' entails, potential downtime, or return values, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

  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 no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately avoids redundant details, aligning with the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

  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 ('Force an immediate refresh') and the target resource ('cached open hackathon dataset'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'get_cache_info' or 'search_hackathons', which limits its differentiation.

  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, such as when cached data is stale or needs updating. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving usage unclear.

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

• get_cache_infoB
  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 hints at read-only inspection ('inspect') but doesn't explicitly state if it's safe, non-destructive, or has any side effects. It also lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'freshness' and 'TTL' entail in practice.

  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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary details. It's front-loaded with the key action ('inspect') and resources, making it easy to parse quickly with zero wasted words.

  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 complexity (simple inspection with 0 parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does but misses behavioral context (e.g., safety, side effects) and usage guidance, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's understanding in a broader workflow.

  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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a high baseline score. It could be a 5 if it explicitly noted the lack of parameters, but it's still effective as-is.

  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 specific verbs ('inspect') and resources ('cache freshness, TTL, and item counts'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'refresh_cache' or 'get_hackathon_details', 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. It mentions 'open hackathon snapshot' but doesn't clarify if this is the only context or how it differs from siblings like 'refresh_cache' (which might update cache) or 'get_hackathon_details' (which might retrieve different data).

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