Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• send_transactionB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions policy limits and does not disclose irreversibility, permission requirements, or response behavior. For a potentially destructive action like sending cryptocurrency, this is a significant transparency 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. No redundant words or filler, making it highly concise while still conveying the essential purpose.

  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?

  This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description is extremely brief. It fails to warn about policy rejection, irreversibility, or chain-specific behaviors. The token 'subject to policy limits' is a vague nod to constraints but does not adequately prepare the agent for a high-stakes transaction.

  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 all three parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or context for the parameters, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

  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 ('Send') and a clear resource ('cryptocurrency to an address'). It unambiguously distinguishes this tool from its siblings (get_balance, check_policy), which are read or policy-related.

  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. The parenthetical 'subject to policy limits' hints at a policy constraint but does not mention check_policy as a prerequisite or describe scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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

• check_policyA
  4/5.0
  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. It uses the verb 'Check,' which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but it does not explicitly state side effects, authorization requirements, or return behavior. For a simple status check, this is adequate but not detailed.

  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 of seven words. There is no unnecessary information, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

  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 simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers its purpose and scope. It does not detail return values, but for a basic status check with no complex inputs or outputs, this is sufficient.

  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?

  The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter detail to add. According to the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but none are needed.

  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 with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('current spending limits and policy status'). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like get_balance and send_transaction because it focuses on policy/limits rather than balance or transaction execution.

  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 by stating what the tool checks, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it vs alternatives like get_balance or send_transaction. There is no direct exclusion or alternative guidance, though the context is understandable.

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

• get_balanceA
  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 clearly indicates a read operation ('Get') and a specific scope ('all supported chains'), but does not disclose potential behavioral traits such as return format, error handling, or aggregation specifics.

  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?

  One short sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Highly concise and well-structured.

  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 zero-parameter, read-only tool without an output schema, the description is sufficient to convey what the tool does, but it lacks detail on the exact return shape (e.g., per-chain breakdown vs. aggregate) and chain-specific behavior. Still, it is adequately complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

  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 baseline is 4 per instructions. The description does not need to add parameter meaning since there are no inputs to explain.

  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?

  Description uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'wallet balance' with scope 'across all supported chains', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like send_transaction and check_policy.

  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?

  Usage context is implied by the description's purpose, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It does not mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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