Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• ae_verify_actionA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the auth requirement (vault-issued API key) and the anchoring context (vault-held record), but does not mention return values, failure modes, or side effects. For a verify tool, the lack of output description is a gap.

  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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, and includes a necessary prerequisite. No filler or redundant content.

  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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description provides the essential purpose and auth context but does not explain expected returns or how it fits with sibling tools. This is adequate but not complete for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema.

  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 the baseline is 3. The parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., '0x-prefixed 65-byte signature') are specific. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already 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 verb 'Verify' and the resource 'a signed action against the vault-held record for an agent', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ae_verify_sovereign. The title adds 'vault-anchored', reinforcing the specific scope.

  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 implies usage for vault-anchored verification but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like ae_verify_sovereign. It mentions a prerequisite (vault-issued API key) but does not contrast with sibling tools or state exclusions.

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

• ae_get_agentA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that this is a read operation ('Fetch') and notes the auth requirement ('Requires a vault-issued API key'). However, it does not describe error behavior or return format, leaving some behavioral gaps.

  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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

  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 simple lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It states what is fetched and the authentication requirement. Could mention return format but this is a minor gap given the simplicity.

  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% for the single parameter (agentId) with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

  The description clearly states a specific action ('Fetch') and resource ('vault-registered public record') for an agent id. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ae_verify_sovereign and ae_mint, making the purpose unmistakable.

  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 as a lookup tool for agent records but does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings or provide exclusions. The only additional guidance is the API key requirement, which is a prerequisite rather than usage context.

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

• ae_mintA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals an authentication requirement ('Requires a vault-issued API key') and mentions the return ('Returns a mint receipt'), but is vague about side effects beyond 'governed action', which largely repeats the title. It does not address reversibility, failure modes, or governance approval details.

  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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds distinct information: action, output, and requirements/governance. No wasted words or redundancy (except 'governed action' echoing the title, but it reinforces the point).

  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?

  The tool has moderate complexity with two nested object params and no output schema. The description covers the action, both inputs' roles, the output type, and a prerequisite. It does not explain the exact structure of the receipt or the governance workflow, but given no annotations or output schema, this is a reasonably complete description.

  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 some context by stating that the capability is minted 'from a MintDelegate and a signed MintRequest', but the schema descriptions already identify these as 'vault-issued' and 'bot-signed'. No additional structure or format details are provided.

  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 'Mint a capability through the vault from a MintDelegate and a signed MintRequest', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on creation rather than verification (ae_verify_*). The output and prerequisites further clarify the purpose.

  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 clear context for when to use the tool by specifying prerequisites (vault-issued API key, MintDelegate, signed MintRequest) and the governed nature of the action. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are verification-focused, making the intended use case apparent.

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

• ae_verify_sovereignA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses key behavioral traits: 'Pure crypto, no vault, no API key, no network' and 'always free.' This indicates no side effects and no external dependencies, though it does not specify return values or error conditions.

  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 purpose, and every clause adds value. It is succinct without being under-specified.

  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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides essential context (offline, free) but misses return-value semantics or behavior for invalid signatures. It is sufficient for selection but not fully 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, merely referencing 'signed message' and 'known agent address' which are already evident from 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 the tool's function: 'Verify a signed message against a known agent address.' The title ('sovereign, offline') and context 'Pure crypto, no vault, no API key, no network' further distinguish it from sibling tools like ae_verify_action.

  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 when to use the tool (offline, no network/API key required) and adds 'always free' as a cost signal. It does not name alternatives explicitly, but the use case is clear from the constraints stated.

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