Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• token_infoA
  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 must convey behavioral traits. It states 'Reads directly from the chain,' implying a safe read operation. It does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error behavior (e.g., invalid address). The listed return values provide some transparency, but more detail on potential issues would be helpful.

  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: the first lists all returned facts, the second gives usage guidance. Every sentence serves a purpose 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 the tool's simplicity (2 required params, no output schema), the description adequately explains what is returned and when to use it. No additional context is necessary.

  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%; both parameters (chain, address) have descriptions. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'on-chain facts about a token/contract', listing specific data fields (symbol, name, decimals, total supply, proxy status, price). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like token_price (likely only price) and gas_prices.

  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 a clear use case: 'Use to vet or describe a token contract before interacting with it.' It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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

• gas_pricesA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses real-time nature ('LIVE'), return contents, and the ability to query one or all chains. Does not mention rate limits or exact chain list, but for a simple read tool this is adequate.

  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, no redundancy, front-loaded with purpose. Every word adds value. Excellent conciseness.

  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?

  Tool is simple (one optional param, no output schema). Description covers purpose, inputs, and output components. Could specify the five supported chains explicitly, but overall complete enough for effective use.

  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% (single parameter 'chain' fully described). Description adds no meaningful extra semantics beyond restating the schema, so baseline 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 verb 'Get', resource 'LIVE gas prices', and lists components (base fee, gas price, priority fee, latest block). It distinctly differs from sibling tools (token_info, token_price, wallet_portfolio) which address different data.

  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 provided: 'Use to decide where/when a transaction is cheapest.' While it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, the context is clear and sufficient given sibling tools are unrelated.

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

• token_priceA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the data source (DefiLlama/CoinGecko) and price type (live USD), but lacks details on behavior when no parameters are given, conflicts, or output format. Adequate but 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?

  The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and parameter options, followed by useful context. No filler 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?

  Given the simple tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality well. However, it omits behavior for missing or conflicting parameters, which may be needed for fully complete guidance.

  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 description coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by noting the precision order of parameter combinations, which helps the agent choose the best input method.

  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 gets the live USD price of a token, lists specific identification methods (chain/address, coingeckoId, symbol), and distinguishes the most precise method. This differentiates it from siblings like gas_prices and token_info.

  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 guidance on parameter preference (chain+address most precise, symbol as best-effort) and mentions the feed is free and key-less. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear for the agent.

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

• wallet_portfolioA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses it reads from public RPCs and joins live prices, indicating read-only behavior. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; it's clear but does not mention any limits or authorization requirements.

  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 key benefit, no fluff. Highly efficient.

  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?

  Explains output (native balances and top ERC-20s priced in USD) sufficiently for a portfolio tool. Vague on 'top' limit but no output schema exists; overall complete.

  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 covers both parameters fully (100% coverage). Description does not add new parameter details beyond what schema already states, so baseline 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?

  Clearly states the tool aggregates live multi-chain portfolio data including native coins and top ERC-20s, priced in USD, across five chains. Distinguishes from sibling tools focused on individual token or gas data.

  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?

  Explicitly recommends use when needing current on-chain holdings/net worth without many RPC calls. Does not exclude cases but implies when to use over siblings like token_price.

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