Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_api_endpointC
  2.9/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information (implying read-only), but doesn't mention potential constraints like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

  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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in a single sentence. It efficiently lists the types of details provided (method, URL, parameters, examples) without unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating the purpose from the details.

  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?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (a single-parameter read operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output types but lacks details on behavioral aspects and usage context. For a tool with no structured safety or output information, it should do more to compensate.

  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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'endpoint_name' well-documented as 'the name of the API endpoint to retrieve (e.g., "payment approval", "transaction retrieval", "cancel" etc.)'. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

  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's purpose: 'retrieve detailed information about a specific API endpoint' with specific elements like method, URL, parameters, and examples. It uses a specific verb ('retrieve') and resource ('API endpoint'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_code_sample or get_sdk_method, which might also provide API-related information.

  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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools (get_code_sample, get_sdk_method, search_nicepay_docs) or specify contexts where this tool is preferred, such as needing endpoint details versus code examples or broader documentation searches.

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

• get_code_sampleC
  2.9/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's function but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only (implied by 'provides' but not stated), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

  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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and key functionality. There is no wasted text, and it efficiently communicates the core idea without unnecessary elaboration, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

  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?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter context but lacks details on behavioral aspects, output format, or usage scenarios. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context to fully guide the agent, but it meets a minimum viable standard.

  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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (topic and language). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning language retrieval but not elaborating on parameter usage or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

  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's purpose: 'provides example code for NicePay API usage' and specifies it can retrieve code samples by language. It uses specific verbs ('provides', 'retrieve') and identifies the resource ('example code'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_api_endpoint or get_sdk_method, which might also provide code-related information.

  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 description mentions that code samples can be retrieved by language, implying usage when language-specific examples are needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_sdk_method or search_nicepay_docs. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent with minimal context for selection.

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

• get_sdk_methodC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information and provides usage examples, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

  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 concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's function and provide examples. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though the second sentence could be more tightly integrated. There's no wasted text, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

  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 no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter with full schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It adequately covers the purpose but lacks behavioral context (e.g., what the response looks like, error conditions) and usage guidelines relative to siblings. For a tool in a suite with similar functions, this leaves the agent under-informed.

  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%, with the single parameter 'method_name' well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning example method names like 'requestPay' and 'cancelPay', but doesn't provide additional syntax, constraints, or contextual meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

  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's purpose: 'JS SDK 메서드 정보를 조회합니다' (retrieves JS SDK method information). It specifies the resource (SDK methods) and verb (retrieve/lookup), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_api_endpoint or get_code_sample. The mention of specific examples like AUTHNICE.requestPay() adds helpful specificity.

  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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like get_api_endpoint, get_code_sample, or search_nicepay_docs, nor does it specify any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers for usage. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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

• search_nicepay_docsB
  3.1/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches documents but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), error handling, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool operates beyond its basic function.

  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 concise and well-structured, consisting of two clear sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and usage without unnecessary details. Every sentence earns its place by contributing essential information, making it easy to understand at a glance.

  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?

  Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic function but lacks details on behavioral aspects and usage context, which are important for a search tool. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more guidance on what to expect from the tool's operation.

  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 description mentions '키워드로 관련 문서를 찾을 수 있습니다' (you can find related documents with keywords), which aligns with the single 'query' parameter in the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100% (the schema provides a clear description and examples), the description adds minimal value beyond what's already documented in the structured data, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

  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's purpose: '나이스페이 개발자 가이드 문서를 검색합니다' (searches NicePay developer guide documents). It specifies the resource (NicePay developer guide documents) and verb (검색합니다/searches), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_api_endpoint or get_code_sample, which might also retrieve documentation-related content.

  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 description provides minimal usage guidance: it mentions that you can search for related documents using keywords. However, it offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_api_endpoint or get_code_sample, nor does it specify any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers for its use.

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