Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• GET_USER_EDITED_WIKISC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states a basic operation without mentioning permissions, rate limits, pagination, ordering, or empty results—missing critical context for a read tool.

  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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it lacks structure such as bullet points or sections that could aid readability.

  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 only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain return values and behavior (e.g., what data is returned, how timeFrameSeconds affects results). It fails to do so, leaving the agent under-informed.

  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 describes both parameters (id as Ethereum address, timeFrameSeconds as optional filter) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score 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 the action ('Get') and resource ('wikis edited by a specific user on IQ.wiki'), distinguishing from siblings like GET_USER_CREATED_WIKIS. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other user-related tools.

  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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., GET_USER_CREATED_WIKIS or GET_USER_WIKI_ACTIVITIES). The agent must infer usage from tool names alone.

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

• GET_USER_CREATED_WIKISB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  The description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as being read-only, potential rate limits, or data freshness. Since annotations are absent, the description should provide more transparency beyond the basic action.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more informative without increasing length significantly.

  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 lack of an output schema, the description does not hint at the return format or any limitations. For a read tool, this leaves gaps in the agent's understanding.

  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 have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which already documents 'id' as an Ethereum address and 'timeFrameSeconds' as an optional filter.

  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 action ('Get') and the resource ('wikis created by a specific user on IQ.wiki'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like GET_USER_EDITED_WIKIS by specifying 'created'.

  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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as GET_USER_EDITED_WIKIS or GET_USER_WIKI_ACTIVITIES. The usage context is only implied by the name.

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

• SEARCH_WIKIB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as output format, pagination, rate limits, or prerequisites. The bare description does not add value beyond the parameter schema.

  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 very short and front-loaded with the purpose. Every word is necessary, though it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.

  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?

  For a search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain result format, limit, or how to interpret results, which is crucial for an agent to use the tool correctly.

  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% and the parameter 'query' already has a description. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 action (Search), resource (wiki from IQ.wiki), and method (by query). It distinguishes from sibling tools like GET_WIKI which likely retrieves a specific wiki.

  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 alternatives like GET_WIKI or user-specific wikis. The description does not provide any context for usage.

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

• GET_USER_WIKI_ACTIVITIESA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description only states the basic operation without disclosing any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or response format.

  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 well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and context, making it efficient and easy to parse.

  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?

  While the parameters are clear, the description lacks information about the response format, pagination, or how the timeFrameSeconds parameter affects results, given the absence of an output schema or annotations.

  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 already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional semantics beyond restating the tool's purpose.

  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 retrieves wiki activities (creations or edits) for a specific user on IQ.wiki, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on only one type of activity.

  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 fetching both creation and edit activities, but it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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

• GET_WIKIA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'get details' without explaining what details are returned, error conditions, or access requirements. This is minimal and insufficient for a transparent description.

  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, clear sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words or information.

  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 single parameter and absence of output schema, the description is basic but adequate. However, it does not explain what 'details' the response contains or how to interpret the output, leaving some ambiguity.

  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 schema provides 100% coverage with a description for the 'id' parameter. The tool description reinforces that the ID is used for retrieval but adds no extra semantic value (e.g., format, source). 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 'Get details about a specific wiki from IQ.wiki by ID,' specifying the verb, resource, scope, and source. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on user-specific wikis (e.g., GET_USER_CREATED_WIKIS) by indicating direct retrieval by ID.

  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 specific wiki ID is known, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like SEARCH_WIKI. No 'when not to use' or prerequisites are mentioned, making it acceptable but not proactive.

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