Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_expenseA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get' implying read-only, but does not disclose output format, side effects, or authentication needs. For a simple get-by-id, this is minimally adequate but lacks explicit behavioral traits.

  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 short sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though a brief mention of the output could be beneficial without being overly long.

  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 tool has one parameter and an output schema, the description is complete enough for a simple get-by-id operation. It covers what the tool does and what input to provide, with no obvious gaps.

  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 0%, but with only one parameter, the description adds meaning that expense_id is the identifier used to fetch the expense. While minimal, it provides the necessary context 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'full details of a single expense', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_expenses (which returns multiple) and create/delete/update (mutations).

  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 usage when full details of a single expense are needed, but does not explicitly state when to avoid it (e.g., use list_expenses for multiple, create/update for mutations). No alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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

• delete_expenseA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description discloses the destructive action ('Delete') and the return value on success. With no annotations, this is adequate for a simple delete operation, though failure behavior is not mentioned.

  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: two sentences with no wasted words. The action is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's purpose.

  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?

  For a one-parameter delete tool, the description covers the basic purpose and return value. However, it lacks details on error cases, idempotency, or any side effects, which would be valuable given no annotations or output schema details.

  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 only says 'by id,' which adds little beyond the parameter name 'expense_id' in the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide more detail about the parameter.

  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 'Delete an expense by id.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_expense, get_expense, list_expenses, and update_expense.

  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?

  Usage is implied: use when you want to delete an expense. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or consequences.

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

• list_expensesA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses sorting order, default group behavior, special group_id=0, and date format. However, it omits pagination behavior and does not mention all parameters like friend_id.

  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 three sentences, directly addressing the main functionality and key parameter nuances. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with the primary action.

  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 8 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers sorting, group scope, and date format. However, it lacks explanation for friend_id and pagination, leaving some gaps.

  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?

  With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate. It explains date filter format and group_id special values, but limit, offset, and friend_id remain undocumented. Only partial parameter 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 lists expenses, sorted most recent first. It is distinct from sibling tools (create, delete, get, update) which have different purposes.

  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 usage for listing expenses but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_expense. No exclusions or when-not guidance is provided.

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

• update_expenseA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided; description carries burden. Discloses partial update behavior and overwrite risk for 'users' parameter. Missing details on error handling or side effects, but sufficient for standard update.

  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-sentence description, front-loaded with main action, followed by critical note on users parameter. 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?

  Covers key behavioral aspects of update operation; output schema presumably handles return values. Could mention error handling or idempotency, but still fairly complete for given complexity.

  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 0%; description only explains 'users' parameter's overwrite behavior and references create_expense for format. Other parameters (cost, date, etc.) rely on name inference. Limited added value beyond 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?

  Clearly states 'Update an existing expense' with a specific verb and resource. Distinct from sibling tools (create, delete, get, list) by implying modification of existing entity.

  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?

  Explicitly notes that only provided fields are changed, giving usage context. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisites (e.g., expense must exist). Implicitly for updating, but lacks exclusion of other tools.

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

• create_expenseA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description must cover behavior. It details splitting logic and date format but does not mention success responses, error conditions, permissions, or side effects.

  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 clear sections for splitting, date, currency. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

  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 9 parameters and 2 required, the description covers all parameters effectively. Output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed here.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema coverage is 0%, so the description provides essential semantics: cost as decimal string, users as list of dicts with specific keys, date as ISO 8601, and default behavior when users is empty.

  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 starts with 'Create a new expense.' and explains the resource and action clearly. It distinguishes from siblings (delete, get, list, update) by focusing on creation.

  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 explains when to use equal split versus custom split and mentions the group_id needed. It could explicitly state that this is for new expenses only, but context from sibling tools helps.

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