Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• evaluate_poolA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 does not mention whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, requires specific permissions, or how it handles inputs. The description only states the high-level function, leaving the agent without essential operational context.

  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 captures the tool's purpose without any redundancy or filler. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

  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?

  The tool has no output schema and no annotations. The description mentions R_net and breakeven corridor but does not define these terms or indicate the output format, leaving potential gaps for an agent to understand what the tool returns.

  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 each parameter having a clear description and example. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how parameters are used in the calculation, maintaining the baseline score.

  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 evaluates LP position risk and calculates R_net and breakeven corridor, providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_latest_audit, which focuses on audits.

  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 evaluating LP risk, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. The context is implied but not overtly stated.

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

• get_latest_auditA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'fetch', implying a read operation, but lacks details on authorization, rate limits, or what happens if no audit exists. Insufficient for a tool that may have 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.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Single sentence, no redundancy. Every word is essential and the purpose is front-loaded. Highly concise.

  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 no output schema, the description should elaborate on what the returned audit signal contains. It names the content area (cost-intelligence and risk mitigation) but lacks detail on structure or format, leaving the agent with incomplete context.

  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?

  No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description correctly avoids adding unnecessary parameter details.

  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?

  Clear verb 'fetch' followed by a specific resource: 'the latest cost-intelligence and risk mitigation audit signal'. No sibling tools to distinguish from, so it effectively communicates the tool's purpose.

  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, prerequisites, or any context. While there are no sibling tools, the description does not help the agent decide when to invoke it beyond the bare purpose.

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