Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• apod_por_fechaA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the default behavior of using today's date when no date is provided, which is not inferable from schema alone.

  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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and includes usage guidance without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff.

  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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and good annotations, the description covers purpose, date parameter, and use case. It doesn't detail the return payload, but the tool is simple and self-explanatory; a return format is not critical for selection.

  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%, with the parameter already documented with format and default. The description reinforces the date parameter and default behavior, but adds little beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic load.

  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 fetches NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day for a specific date, using a specific verb ('Trae') and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming APOD/photo of the cosmos for a date, which is distinct from Mars photos, asteroids, or Earth images.

  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?

  Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Úsala cuando el usuario pida la imagen astronómica del día, APOD o una foto del cosmos de cierta fecha.' It gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly contrast 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.

• asteroides_cercanosA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by stating the date range limit ('hasta 7 días') and the sorting behavior ('Ordena por cercanía'), which are not captured in annotations or schema. No contradiction with annotations.

  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?

  Two sentences with no wasted words. The description front-loads the action and resource, then adds constraints and usage context efficiently.

  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 read-only list tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, constraints, and usage context. It lacks return-format details (e.g., fields, units), but the task is simple and no output schema is present, so only a slight gap.

  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%: both fecha_inicio and fecha_fin are described with patterns and the 7-day constraint. The description reinforces the 7-day limit but adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

  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 lists near-Earth asteroids (NeoWs) for a date range, with a specific verb ('Lista') and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on asteroids, approaches, and NEOs, which is immediately apparent.

  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?

  The description explicitly says to use it for 'acercamientos, NEOs o si hay algún asteroide relevante', providing clear when-to-use context. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tools are topically distinct enough that exclusions are implied.

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

• imagen_tierraA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: if no date is provided, it uses the most recent available images. This default behavior is not in the annotations and is useful for the agent.

  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 two sentences: the first states the core function and the second gives default behavior and usage context. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

  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?

  For a tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is sufficient. It covers what the tool returns (images), the default date behavior, and when to choose it over siblings, leaving no critical gaps.

  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 the single parameter 'fecha' fully with pattern and description, including the default behavior. The description duplicates this information without adding new semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

  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 'Trae' (brings) and clearly identifies the resource: full images of Earth from the DSCOVR (EPIC) satellite. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating the usage context 'cuando pidan ver la Tierra desde el espacio o fotos EPIC,' which separates it from Mars photos, APOD, and asteroid tools.

  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 provides an explicit when-to-use instruction: 'Úsala cuando pidan ver la Tierra desde el espacio o fotos EPIC.' This gives clear contextual guidance, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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

• fotos_marteA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature, lowering the bar. The description adds valuable behavioral context: if no sol/date is provided, it returns the most recent photos. This goes beyond schema and annotations, though it does not detail rate limits 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by filtering options and a usage tip. Every sentence contributes valuable information without redundancy or filler.

  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 read-only photo-fetching tool, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, filters, default behavior, and when to use it. Although there is no output schema, the description's mention of 'fotos' implies the return type. Minor gaps like response format details are acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

  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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that sol and fecha_terrestre are filters and that omitting them returns the most recent photos. This clarifies the interaction between parameters beyond the schema definitions.

  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 purpose: fetching Mars rover photos from Curiosity, Opportunity, Spirit, and Perseverance. It specifies the resource (Mars rovers) and distinguishes it from sibling tools (APOD, asteroids, Earth images) by focusing on Mars rover photos.

  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?

  The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Úsala cuando pidan fotos de Marte o de un rover.' It clearly indicates when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives. However, the sibling tools are clearly distinct in function, so this is sufficient.

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