Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• compare_cryptosA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels. It comprehensively details side effects (read-only, no side effects), authentication (none for basic), rate limits (10/day free, unlimited pro), error handling (structured errors), idempotency (fully idempotent), and data privacy (no storage). This exceeds typical transparency requirements.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is well-structured with clear sections, but it contains redundancy between the initial 'Behavior' bullet and the later 'Behavioral Transparency' section, both stating read-only and stateless nature. The front-loaded main purpose is good, but some sentences could be merged or removed to improve 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?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 params, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral traits thoroughly. The only gap is the weak parameter description, which hurts completeness. The output schema existence reduces the need to explain return values, but a brief note on what the comparison output contains would be beneficial.

  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?

  The input schema has 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. However, the 'Args' section merely repeats the parameter names and types ('symbols (str)', 'api_key (str)') without adding meaning, format constraints, or usage context. The earlier description does clarify symbols format (comma-separated), but that is not attributed to the parameter. Overall, this fails to add value beyond the schema.

  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 compares cryptocurrencies side by side, with a specific verb and resource. The example 'BTC,ETH,SOL' clarifies input format. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like calculate_portfolio or track_price, which would strengthen clarity.

  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 includes 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, providing explicit guidance. However, the when-to-use text is generic ('structured analysis or classification of inputs against established frameworks') and not specific to comparing cryptocurrencies, reducing its practical value. No mention of alternative sibling tools.

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

• track_priceA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description provides a dedicated 'Behavioral Transparency' section covering side effects, authentication, rate limits, error handling, idempotency, and data privacy in detail. The 'Behavior' section also confirms read-only and stateless nature.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is verbose and contains redundant sections (e.g., 'Behavior' and 'Behavioral Transparency' overlap). It could be streamlined, but the structure with clear sections is helpful. Some content (like the generic 'When to use') adds confusion.

  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?

  Despite the lack of annotations and poor parameter semantics, the description covers most behavioral aspects comprehensively. The tool is simple, and the explanation of rate limits, authentication, and error handling is thorough. However, the symbol format could be clarified, and the 'When to use' section is misleading.

  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 'Args' section provides only vague descriptions ('The symbol to analyze or process') without adding cryptocurrency-specific context like examples or format. The body text mentions authentication and rate limits, which hints at api_key usage, but the parameter descriptions themselves are insufficient.

  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 first sentence clearly states the tool retrieves current price, 24h change, and market cap for a cryptocurrency symbol, which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes from siblings like get_market_cap (market cap only) and compare_cryptos (comparison).

  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 'When to use' section is generic and mismatched (structured analysis/classification), not specific to cryptocurrency price retrieval. There is no guidance comparing to siblings or when to use alternatives. The 'When NOT to use' is generic but acceptable.

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

• get_market_capA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. Includes comprehensive details on side effects, authentication, rate limits, error handling, idempotency, and data privacy.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Well-structured but contains redundancy, especially between the initial statement and the long 'Behavioral Transparency' section. Generic parts could be removed to improve clarity.

  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?

  Despite the generic overlays, the description provides thorough operational context covering behavior, limits, and safety. Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation.

  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's 'Args' section uses vague phrasing like 'The top n to analyze or process' without clarifying how parameters relate to market cap. No explanation of api_key despite inconsistent references.

  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 first sentence clearly states the tool retrieves top cryptocurrencies by market cap. However, subsequent generic language about 'structured analysis or classification' conflicts with the specific purpose and may confuse an AI agent.

  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?

  Includes explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, but the guidance is generic and not tailored to market cap retrieval. Does not differentiate from sibling tools.

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

• calculate_portfolioA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explicitly states read-only, stateless, idempotent, no side effects, authentication details (no auth for basic usage), rate limits (free: 10/day, pro: unlimited), error handling (structured error objects), and data privacy (no storage/logging). Comprehensive.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is lengthy with redundant sections (e.g., 'Behavior' and 'Behavioral Transparency' overlap). The 'When to use' section is generic and adds little value. Could be more concise by merging repetitive parts, but front-loaded with the main purpose.

  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?

  With 2 parameters, no input schema annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers all critical aspects: input format, behavior, authentication, rate limits, error handling, idempotency, and privacy. No gaps remain.

  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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the holdings parameter format explicitly ('BTC:0.5,ETH:10,SOL:100') and notes that api_key is for authentication. While api_key explanation is minimal, the holdings format description adds significant 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?

  The description explicitly states the tool calculates total portfolio value from holdings and provides the exact input format 'BTC:0.5,ETH:10,SOL:100'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like compare_cryptos, get_market_cap, and track_price by focusing on portfolio calculation.

  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 'When to use' section is generic ('structured analysis or classification of inputs against established frameworks or standards') and not specific to portfolio calculation. The 'When NOT to use' is vague. No explicit comparison to sibling tools. However, the description does clarify the required input format.

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