Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_trending_marketsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose what 'candidates' means, how trends are determined, or any side effects, auth requirements, or return format.

  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?

  Very concise single sentence of 13 words, but could be improved by including key terms like 'trending' for clarity.

  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?

  With no output schema, the description lacks details on what is returned (e.g., market names, IDs, pricing). Incomplete for a listing 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% for the one parameter (limit), so the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 it lists free Polymarket market candidates for structured research before purchasing intelligence, specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly mention 'trending' as in the title, causing slight ambiguity.

  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 siblings (get_market_brief, get_market_delta, get_market_pricing). The phrase 'before purchasing intelligence' implies a sequence but no explicit comparison.

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

• get_market_pricingB
  3.4/5.0
  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 discloses the tool is safe (no payment required) and returns data without side effects. However, it does not mention rate limits, caching, or whether the data is real-time.

  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?

  A single sentence that front-loads the key information. Every word adds value; no redundancy.

  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 adequately covers what the tool returns for a no-input tool. However, it lacks details on the output format, error behavior, or rate limits. Given no output schema, more context would improve completeness.

  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?

  There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. Baseline 4 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100% and no parameters require explanation.

  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 tool returns 'public pricing, network, freshness, and payment metadata,' specifying the output categories. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings but the verb 'Returns' is specific enough for a tool with no inputs.

  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 vs siblings like get_market_brief or get_market_delta. The phrase 'without making a payment' hints at a free use case but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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

• get_market_briefA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description discloses the cost and read-only nature, but the term 'purchases' suggests a write transaction, potentially contradicting 'read-only'. It does not explain authentication requirements or return behavior. Without annotations, more clarity on side effects would improve 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?

  The description is a single sentence of 11 words, conveying essential information (cost, platform, type) without superfluous content. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

  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 one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the action and cost but lacks details on what is returned (the brief content), authentication needs, and post-purchase behavior. More context would improve completeness.

  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 100% coverage for the single 'slug' parameter, including pattern and description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score 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 it purchases a market brief, specifies the cost (0.05 USDC), indicates it is read-only and structured, and names the platform (Base). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_market_delta, get_market_pricing, and list_trending_markets.

  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 use when a structured intelligence brief is needed for a specific slug, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond the slug parameter.

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

• get_market_deltaA
  3.7/5.0
  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 discloses that the tool involves a purchase (cost of 0.05 USDC) and is read-only. However, it does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., if purchase is refundable, rate limits, or whether multiple calls incur multiple charges).

  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 concise sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the action and required inputs adequately but omits important context such as the format of the returned report, any limits on usage, and whether the cost is deducted from a balance. More detail would improve completeness.

  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 does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for both parameters ('slug' and 'since'). The schema descriptions are already clear.

  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 purchases a read-only probability-change report for a market, specifying the cost (0.05 USDC) and the time filter (since an ISO 8601 UTC timestamp). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_market_brief (brief info) and get_market_pricing (pricing).

  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 a probability-change report since a timestamp is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No guidance on scenarios where this tool should not be used.

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