Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• smc_find_liquidity_sweepsA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by explaining the sweep concept, output format, and distinction from BOS, providing behavioral context beyond the 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 very concise: three sentences plus a returns format example. It front-loads the purpose and is well-structured with no 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, annotations, and output schema example, the description covers the core concept and output but lacks parameter details and usage guidance, making it moderately 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?

  The input schema has multiple parameters with descriptions, but the tool description does not mention any of them, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use parameters like symbol, interval, or lookback. Schema description coverage is 0% from the description's perspective.

  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 finds liquidity sweeps and explains the concept, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like smc_find_fair_value_gaps or smc_get_market_structure.

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

  Usage Guidelines3/5

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

  The description notes that sweeps often precede reversals and are distinct from BOS, hinting at usage for reversal detection, but it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives.

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

• smc_find_order_blocksA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Description adds context beyond annotations by explaining the concept of order blocks, mitigation, and the output structure. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc., so the description enriches behavioral understanding without contradiction.

  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 concise, front-loading the core definition and purpose, then briefly explaining the concept and output format. It is not verbose but could be slightly more structured.

  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?

  Given the availability of an output schema (implied by context signals), the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and output. The annotations cover safety aspects, making the description adequate 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 input schema includes descriptions for each parameter (symbol, interval, etc.), so the tool description does not need to repeat them. The description adds a partial output schema example but does not enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

  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 finds order blocks, defines them as 'the last opposite candle before a structure break,' and lists the returned data fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on fair value gaps, liquidity sweeps, etc.

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

  Usage Guidelines3/5

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

  The description implies the tool is for identifying order blocks in trading analysis and notes that unmitigated blocks are typically watched, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like smc_find_fair_value_gaps.

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

• smc_get_market_structureA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description reinforces that it is a read operation ('Read market structure') and details the return format, adding value beyond annotations without contradiction.

  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 concise, with two paragraphs: the first states the purpose, the second describes the return format. No unnecessary words, and key information is front-loaded.

  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 description provides a pseudo-schema for the JSON return, which is helpful given an output schema exists. However, it fails to explain the parameters, which are numerous and have no schema descriptions. For a tool with 5 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete.

  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%, meaning the description does not describe any parameters. The input schema has five parameters (symbol, interval, limit, lookback, response_format) but the description only mentions the output. This is a significant gap for a tool with 0% 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 reads market structure, specifically swing points, BOS/CHoCH events, and trend bias. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., smc_find_fair_value_gaps) by focusing on core structure rather than specific patterns.

  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 implies use for obtaining overall market structure and directional bias. It does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context of siblings and the description's focus on structure provides sufficient clue for an AI agent.

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

• smc_find_fair_value_gapsA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) cover safety, and description adds output structure and conceptual behavior (gaps rebalance). No contradictions, but the behavioral disclosure is adequate given 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?

  Description is concise, with two short paragraphs and a returns line. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

  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?

  Tool is simple with a clear output shape described in the description. Annotations cover safety. Given the low complexity, the description is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

  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?

  Input schema provides full descriptions for all five parameters, so the tool description does not need to repeat them. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but schema coverage is high, meeting the baseline.

  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?

  Description explicitly states it finds fair value gaps (three-candle imbalances) and reports zone, direction, and filled status. Differentiates from sibling tools like order blocks or liquidity sweeps by focusing on gaps.

  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?

  Description explains that unfilled gaps act as magnets and make natural entry or target zones, providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to siblings beyond naming them.

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

• smc_full_analysisA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds that it combines multiple tools and returns a specific JSON structure, which is useful context but not critical 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 concise, with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the main purpose and then details the return structure in a clear bullet-like format.

  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?

  The description covers the tool's composite nature, input parameters implicitly, and return structure explicitly. For a tool that aggregates multiple analyses, this is sufficient.

  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 only parameter is 'params', which is a nested object with well-described properties in the schema. The tool description adds no additional semantics for parameters. Given schema coverage is 0% at top level but internally detailed, 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 it runs every SMC tool and returns a combined plain-English read. It lists the return fields and distinguishes from sibling tools which are individual analyses.

  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 positions it as the fastest way to get a complete picture, implying when to use it. It doesn't explicitly state when to avoid it or name alternatives, but the sibling context makes the differentiation clear.

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