Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• fortune_qianB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the tool draws a lot and returns result, which is minimally adequate for a simple read-only operation. Does not disclose any side effects or constraints.

  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 that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No wasted words, but could be expanded with usage context.

  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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. However, it lacks detail on return format or behavior, making it slightly incomplete.

  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 optional 'question' parameter well-described in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter information beyond stating the tool's core function.

  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 draws a lot from a spirit lot container and returns text and explanation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that likely involve calculations (bazi, name, coder). However, explicit sibling differentiation is missing.

  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 versus alternatives like fortune_bazi, fortune_name, or fortune_coder. The description only implies usage for random lot drawing.

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

• fortune_coderA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as handling invalid languages, rate limits, or the output format. The description is minimal and does not reveal what happens after input.

  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, short sentence that is front-loaded. However, it could be more structured by explicitly stating the output format or usage conditions.

  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 output schema and annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., formatted text with colors or icons) or provide any usage context, leaving the agent guessing.

  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 schema has 100% coverage with a description for the 'language' parameter. The tool description adds an example list ('如 Python、JavaScript、Rust'), providing slight additional context 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '程序员黄历 — 输入编程语言，看今天的宜忌、代码气运和幸运语言' translates to 'Programmer's almanac — enter a programming language, see today's auspiciousness, code luck, and lucky language'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which likely deal with other fortune domains (如 fortune_bazi for eight characters, fortune_name for names).

  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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context of being a programmer's almanac implies it is for programming-related fortunes. Sibling names provide clues, but no explicit guidance.

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

• fortune_baziA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses inputs and outputs but does not mention side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. As a calculation tool, it is likely read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.

  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 (in Chinese) that effectively communicates purpose and outputs with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the tool's name and 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?

  Given no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (four pillars, five elements, etc.). It covers the main functionality for a fortune-telling tool. Slight lack of detail on output format, but acceptable.

  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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions inputs (birth date and gender) but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema descriptions. It repeats what is already evident from the parameter descriptions.

  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 specifies the verb '推算' (calculate) and the resource '八字排盘' (Ba Zi chart), and lists the outputs (four pillars, five elements, day master analysis, today's fortune), distinguishing it from sibling fortune tools.

  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 Ba Zi fortune calculation but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., fortune_qian, fortune_name). No context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• fortune_nameA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the core behavior (analyzes five grids, returns a score), but does not mention edge cases like invalid names or result 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?

  Single sentence front-loads the purpose and method. Every word is necessary; no superfluous information.

  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?

  With one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's function. It could be more complete by indicating return format, but not a major 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% as the only parameter 'name' has a description ('需要分析的姓名，2-4个字'). The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so 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?

  Clearly states the tool scores a name using 五格剖象法 analyzing five specific grids, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like fortune_bazi (Ba Zi) and fortune_qian (I Ching).

  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?

  Description says to input a name and explicitly mentions the analysis method, providing clear context for use. However, it does not specify when to avoid using this tool versus alternatives.

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