Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_markets_liquidityA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 usefully adds that data is fetched 'directly from the EVM blockchain' and that liquidity filtering occurs, but it does not explain what 'available liquidity' means, whether results are paginated, or what the return format is. This is adequate but not rich.

  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, efficient sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the filtering behavior and data source.

  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 simple read-only listing tool with one optional parameter, the description is mostly sufficient, but it leaves the exact meaning of 'available liquidity' unclear and provides no return-shape information despite there being no output schema. An agent could call it correctly, but might misjudge what results are returned.

  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 covers 100% of the single parameter assetSymbol, including its optionality and examples. The description itself does not mention this parameter, but the schema already documents it, so the baseline of 3 applies. No additional semantic value is added 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 uses a specific verb ('Fetches'), a clear resource ('all Citadelle options markets'), and a distinct source ('directly from the EVM blockchain'). It also states the selection criterion ('filters them by available liquidity'), which clearly differentiates this tool from the sibling tools get_wallet_portfolio and generate_trade_link.

  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 when to use the tool—when market liquidity data is needed—but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it. The sibling tools are clearly different in purpose, but no direct routing guidance is provided.

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

• get_wallet_portfolioA
  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 full burden and does provide some useful behavioral context: it is a read operation ('fetches'), limited to open positions, and sourced directly from the blockchain. However, it does not disclose error behavior, data format, pagination, or whether network conditions or blockchain provider requirements apply.

  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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, resource, scope, and data source with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple one-parameter tool.

  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 low-complexity tool with one fully documented parameter, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly and states what the result represents ('open Citadelle options positions'). However, since there is no output schema, return shape and field details are left unspecified, though this is a minor gap for such a simple getter.

  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 already fully documents the only parameter with 'The EVM wallet address (0x string)', so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'specific EVM wallet' reinforces the parameter's meaning but adds no new semantic details 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 states a specific action ('fetches'), a concrete resource ('open Citadelle options positions'), and an explicit scope ('for a specific EVM wallet'). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools, which are about market liquidity and trade link generation.

  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 the tool should be used when an agent needs open options positions for a specific EVM wallet, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or sibling comparisons are provided.

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

• generate_trade_linkA
  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 behavioral burden. It states that the tool only generates a URL and that the trade is executed in the web UI, which rules out direct execution. However, it does not disclose whether authentication is required, whether the link is one-time, or what happens on invalid inputs.

  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, front-loaded sentence states the action and outcome without fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

  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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It specifies the output (a URL), the redirect target, and the trade context. It could add error or authentication behavior, but nothing essential is missing for selecting and invoking it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents marketId and action, including the allowed action values. The description adds only the high-level context of an option trade and does not further clarify parameter semantics; baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Generates') and a clear resource ('a URL that redirects the user to the web UI to securely execute an option trade'). This is immediately distinguishable from the read-only sibling tools, which fetch market liquidity and wallet portfolio data.

  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?

  It clearly conveys the use case: when the user needs to initiate an option trade through the web UI, this tool produces the redirect URL. It does not name other tools or give explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the siblings are sufficiently unrelated that the context alone is clear.

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