Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_agent_historyC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states that it gets the 'full reasoning history', but lacks disclosure about rate limits, access permissions, pagination behavior, or any side effects. The claim of 'all decisions' implies completeness but no confirmation.

  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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word adds value, with no extraneous content. It is efficient and easy to parse.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool has no output schema, no annotations, and only one parameter, the description is minimal. It does not explain what the return value looks like, whether there is pagination, or any special behavior. The optional nature of the parameter is not addressed.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds no information about the single parameter 'agent_id'. It does not specify whether it is required (listed as 0 required), expected format, or any constraints. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

  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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'full reasoning history for an agent'. It specifies that it includes 'all decisions they have ever logged to AgentLedger', which defines scope. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_reasoning' or 'audit_agent', which likely have similar purposes.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as 'log_reasoning', 'get_reasoning', 'verify_reasoning', or 'audit_agent'. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or contextual use cases.

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

• audit_agentB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Without annotations, the description must reveal behavioral traits. It mentions downloading decisions and verifying integrity, but omits side effects, resource usage, authentication needs, or whether the download is stored. For a tool with no annotations, this is moderate disclosure.

  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?

  Two sentences are concise and front-loaded with the main action. However, details about output format are embedded rather than structured, and no parameter info is included.

  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 covers the core function and return values but lacks prerequisites (e.g., agent existence, required scopes), error handling, and details on the 'details' response. For a tool with no output schema, more would be expected.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the 'agent_id' parameter at all. The parameter's purpose, format, or source is unexplained, leaving the agent to infer from the name 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 it audits an agent's complete reasoning chain, downloads decisions, verifies tampering, and returns INTACT or BROKEN. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_reasoning or verify_reasoning by specifying the full chain download and integrity check.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like verify_reasoning or get_agent_history. The description lacks when-not-to-use context or prerequisite conditions.

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

• get_reasoningA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided; description only states retrieval action without disclosing read-only nature, error behavior, or access 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?

  Single sentence with no fluff, directly conveys purpose and mechanism.

  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 core functionality but lacks output structure or error scenarios; adequate for simple retrieval with one parameter.

  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 100% with parameter description already explaining root_hash's origin. Description adds no new semantic 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?

  Description clearly states verb 'Retrieve', resource 'reasoning trace', and method 'using its root hash'. Distinguishes from siblings: log_reasoning (logging), verify_reasoning (verification), get_agent_history (history), audit_agent (audit).

  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?

  Implies usage when root hash is known, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison with siblings.

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

• log_reasoningA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates key traits: permanent storage, immutability, chaining of decisions, and a root hash receipt. These details help the agent understand the irreversible and security-sensitive nature of the action.

  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 with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. The description is well-structured for quick comprehension.

  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 (7 parameters, nested objects) and no output schema, the description does not explain the return value or output format. It mentions a 'root hash receipt' but lacks specifics about what the agent can expect as a response. The description is complete for understanding the action but incomplete for anticipating the tool's output.

  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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it provides general context about the overall operation but not how each parameter affects behavior.

  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 'log', the resource 'AI agent reasoning trace', and the storage destination '0G Storage'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get, verify, history, audit) by focusing on writing/recording, not reading or verification.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools exist but are not mentioned. The description implies usage for logging reasoning, but does not specify when not to use it or compare with other tools.

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

• verify_reasoningA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool is a read-only check, returns a boolean, and doesn't modify state. Minor gap: no mention of error handling or performance.

  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?

  Single sentence, front-loaded with the primary action, no unnecessary 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 1 parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate for a simple verification tool. However, it lacks parameter explanation and does not integrate with sibling tools context.

  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% and the description does not explain the root_hash parameter. It assumes the agent knows what a root hash is and where to get it, adding minimal semantic value 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?

  Description clearly states the verb (verify), resource (reasoning trace), and purpose (check existence and integrity). It distinguishes from siblings like log_reasoning (write), get_reasoning (read), and audit_agent (audit).

  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 from the purpose, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or references to sibling tools.

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