Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• sweep_nicheA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the algorithmic approach (via featured channels, ranking outliers) and practical cost ('Costs about 5 quota units per channel found'), which goes beyond the bare minimum. However, it does not mention potential failure modes or determinism, so it is not exhaustive.

  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?

  Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, then usage guidance and cost. Every word earns its place with zero fluff.

  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?

  The tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description explains purpose and usage well but leaves 'limit' and 'max_channels' undefined and does not describe the return format beyond 'rank the strongest outliers'. This is a significant gap for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without guessing.

  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 coverage is only 33% (only 'seed' is described in the schema). The description adds no meaning for 'limit' or 'max_channels', and even for 'seed' it merely restates the schema. The cost note hints at a connection to max_channels but does not clarify the parameter's role.

  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 clearly states a specific verb+resource: 'Find channels related to a seed channel through the channels it features, then rank the strongest outliers across all of them.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on discovery of unknown niches rather than analysis of named channels.

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

  Usage Guidelines4/5

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

  Explicit when-to-use guidance is present: 'Call this when the user wants to discover channels in a niche they do not already know, rather than analyse ones they named.' This states a clear context and contrasts with the alternative use case, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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

• compare_channelsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the cost ('Costs about 5 quota units per channel') and explains the normalization basis ('measured against its own channel's baseline'). It implies read-only behavior via 'scan', but does not explicitly confirm non-mutating behavior or describe return format. Overall, it adds meaningful context beyond the schema.

  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?

  Three short sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: what it does, when to use it, and cost. No filler or redundancy.

  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?

  The core function and usage context are clear, and the cost note is helpful. However, with no output schema and two undocumented params (depth, limit), the description leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior and return values. It is adequate but not complete.

  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 only 33% (only 'channels' has a schema description). The description rephrases 'channels' as 'several YouTube channels' and adds niche/competitor context, but provides no explanation for 'depth' or 'limit'. The enum values for 'depth' (light/standard/deep) remain completely undefined, so the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

  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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Scan several YouTube channels at once and return the strongest outliers across all of them, each measured against its own channel's baseline.' This gives a specific verb, resource, and scope, and distinguishes it from single-channel analysis.

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

  Usage Guidelines4/5

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

  Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Call this when the user wants to see what is working across a niche or a set of competitors rather than one channel.' This clearly indicates when to use it, though it does not name alternative sibling tools explicitly, only contrasts with single-channel use.

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

• find_outliersA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful operational context: 'Runs on the caller's own free YouTube Data API key. Costs about 5 quota units.' However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the output format will be, or any potential side effects, leaving some 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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose, then provide usage and operational context. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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

  Completeness4/5

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

  For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: core functionality, when to use it, and operational requirements (API key and quota). It does not describe the return format, but the use case is simple enough that the description adequately prepares an agent.

  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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the description need not repeat parameter details. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema is already comprehensive, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Rank a YouTube channel's recent uploads by how far each beat that channel's own baseline.' It uses a specific verb ('rank') and identifies the resource (YouTube channel uploads) and the comparison basis (own baseline). This distinguishes it from siblings like channel_baseline (computes baseline) and compare_channels (compares channels).

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

  Usage Guidelines4/5

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

  The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this when the user wants to know which of a channel's videos overperformed, or wants proven ideas from a specific channel.' It does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear enough to guide an agent.

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

• channel_baselineA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the metric (median views of recent settled uploads), the additional outputs (subscriber count, upload cadence), and even the quota cost. It doesn't cover errors or permission requirements, but provides meaningful transparency beyond the title.

  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 two concise sentences, with the first front-loading the core purpose and the second giving a clear usage scenario. The cost note is a single add-on. Every piece of information earns its place.

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

  Completeness4/5

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

  For a one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage trigger, metric definition, and cost. It doesn't detail exact response structure or edge cases, but it's sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

  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 parameter schema already provides 100% coverage, describing the accepted formats (URL, @handle, channel id, or any video URL). The tool description adds no parameter-specific details, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

  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 clearly states what the tool does: it reports a channel's baseline performance as median views of recent settled uploads, along with subscriber count and upload cadence. It also positions this as a reference point for judging video performance, distinguishing it from the sibling tools like find_outliers and compare_channels.

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

  Usage Guidelines4/5

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

  The description explicitly says to call this tool when the user asks whether a view count is good for a channel or needs a reference point before judging a video. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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