Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• fr_property_transactionsA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral details such as the return format (sales with fields, sorted most-recent first) and data source (DVF starts 2010), which go beyond annotations.

  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 front-loaded with purpose and key choice, followed by a clean argument list. It is concise for 9 parameters, with no extraneous information. Minor improvement could be a more structured list, but overall efficient.

  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?

  Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: data source, required conditions, filtering options, return fields, sorting, and format. Annotations further cover safety and idempotency, making the description complete for an agent to use effectively.

  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?

  With 100% schema coverage, the description still adds value by clarifying the mutual exclusivity of 'address' and 'citycode', emphasizing the default radius, and grouping parameters into logical categories (e.g., filtering by rooms, year). This provides meaning beyond the schema alone.

  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 lists real-estate sale transactions from the French DVF dataset, with options for address or commune. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like geocoding, market stats, or price estimates.

  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 clear context on when to use the tool, advising to provide either 'address' or 'citycode'. It recommends 'address' for radius search. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or directly reference sibling tools for alternatives.

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

• fr_property_geocodeA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as true/false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds value by stating the underlying data source (BAN), the ranking mechanism (score 0-1), and the specific output fields, which go beyond annotations.

  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 well-structured with a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by usage guidance, parameter list, and return description. No extraneous information; every sentence adds value. It is concise yet thorough.

  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?

  Given the tool has 3 parameters (all documented) and no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields (label, lat, lon, citycode, postcode, city, score, type) and their meaning. It also provides context about the BAN source and the tool's role in the suite, making it fully informative for an AI agent.

  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?

  Input schema has full parameter description coverage (100%), so baseline is 3. However, the description adds context: it explains that 'address' is free-text, 'limit' is maximum candidates with default 5, and 'response_format' controls output type. This enriches understanding beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

  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 verb 'resolve' and the resource 'free-text French address' to obtain geographic coordinates and INSEE code. It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting the output is needed by other tools, making its purpose unambiguous.

  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 advises when to use the tool: to obtain latitude/longitude and citycode for other tools, or to validate/normalize an address. It does not mention when not to use or direct alternatives, but the context is clear given sibling tools serve different purposes.

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

• fr_property_price_estimateA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it details the estimation methodology (geocode, ±35% surface, median EUR/m²), warns it's a statistical estimate not certified, and explains confidence levels. This goes beyond annotations.

  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 well-structured: purpose sentence, method paragraph, args list, returns. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value, including the caveat about statistical estimate. No filler.

  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?

  Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values (estimate, range, comps count, confidence) and the method. It covers the algorithmic details, default values, and limitations (not certified valuation), making it fully actionable for 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100% (6/6 parameters described in schema). The description adds methodological context (e.g., radius_m for comparable selection, years_back lookback) but does not significantly enhance individual parameter meanings beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 it estimates the market value of a French property using DVF comparables, specifying the verb (estimate) and resource (French property). It distinguishes from sibling tools like geocode or transactions by focusing on valuation.

  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 explains the method and what the tool does, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like fr_property_market_stats or fr_property_transactions. However, the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer usage.

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

• fr_property_market_statsA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint as true, and the description adds that yoyPricePerM2Pct returns null if insufficient data, disclosing edge-case behavior. No contradictions.

  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 concise paragraphs, front-loaded with core purpose, then parameter guidance, then return values. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

  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?

  The description covers parameters and return values well, but lacks notes on data freshness, error handling, or performance. Still highly adequate given good annotations.

  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 100%, but the description adds clarity by summarizing the exclusivity of address/citycode and listing return fields not in the schema. It goes beyond the baseline 3.

  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 it computes commune-level real-estate market statistics from DVF, specifying exact metrics like median/p25/p75 EUR/m² and sales volume. It distinguishes from sibling tools (geocode, price estimate, transactions) by focusing on aggregative stats.

  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?

  It explicitly says to provide either 'address' or 'citycode', guiding parameter selection. It does not directly contrast with siblings for when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough.

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