Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_historical_ratesA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the API key requirement and period granularity (hourly, daily, weekly) but omits details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication failure 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 two sentences long, front-loads the primary purpose, and efficiently covers period details and API key requirement. No wasted words.

  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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, period mapping, and authentication need. It does not describe the return format, but the information is sufficient for an agent to decide whether to invoke the tool.

  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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping period values to granularity (1d=hourly, etc.), but for source/target it merely restates schema info. The addition is marginal.

  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 states 'Get historical exchange-rate data points for a currency pair over a period,' clearly indicating the verb (get) and resource (historical exchange-rate data points). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_exchange_rate (likely current rate) and list_currencies by focusing on historical data, though no explicit sibling differentiation is provided.

  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 explains when to use the tool (for historical data over a period) and mentions a prerequisite (API key), but it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools like get_exchange_rate for current rates.

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

• get_exchange_rateA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the tool returns a single rate number and requires an API key, which are key behaviors. It does not cover potential rate limits or error handling, but for a simple read operation, it is sufficiently transparent.

  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 sentences: first explains purpose, second states requirement. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information.

  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?

  For a simple tool with 2 required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately states it returns a rate number and mentions API key requirement. No gaps given 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 provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (ISO 4217 currency codes). The description adds 'mid-market' context but does not enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema already covers. With 100% schema description coverage, 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?

  Description clearly states 'Get the current mid-market exchange rate between two currencies. Returns a single rate number.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'exchange rate' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like get_historical_rates (historical data) and list_currencies (list of codes).

  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 includes a prerequisite: 'Requires API key (ALLRATES_API_KEY).' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like get_historical_rates or get_rates_authenticated, leaving some ambiguity.

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

• get_rates_authenticatedA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the API key requirement and multi-target support, but lacks details on error handling, return format, or rate limits, providing only partial 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?

  Two concise sentences front-load the core purpose and key feature (multi-target), with no redundant or extraneous information.

  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 no output schema and 4 parameters, the description explains auth and target format but omits return value description, error scenarios, and usage of time/group parameters, leaving moderate gaps.

  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% (baseline 3). The description adds value by clarifying that the target parameter supports comma-separated codes with an example, enhancing understanding beyond the schema.

  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 retrieves rates with higher limits and multi-target support, distinguishing it from siblings like get_exchange_rate and get_historical_rates.

  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 mentions the requirement for an API key and implies use when higher limits or multiple targets are needed, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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

• list_currenciesA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Since no annotations are provided, the description compensates by noting authentication requirement and 24-hour caching, which are important behavioral traits not inferable from 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?

  Two concise sentences, no redundant information. Essential elements are front-loaded.

  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 no output schema and simple parameters (none), the description covers purpose, requirements, and caching. Could mention output format, but not critical for a list operation.

  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?

  No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, but baseline for no parameters is 4.

  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 all supported currencies with specific attributes (code, name, symbol). It is distinct from sibling tools which deal with exchange rates.

  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 mentions API key requirement and caching, but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternative siblings like get_exchange_rate or get_historical_rates.

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