Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_dte_typesA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It specifies the exact number (11), the content (two-digit code, Spanish name), and that these are official documents. This provides sufficient behavioral insight for a read-only list operation.

  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 well-constructed sentence, front-loaded with the key action, and no extraneous words. All information is relevant and efficiently presented.

  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?

  Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and a simple purpose, the description is complete. It fully explains what the tool returns (11 types, codes, Spanish names), sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret results 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?

  The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it correctly focuses on the return content.

  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 that the tool returns the 11 official Salvadoran electronic tax document types with their codes and names. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('DTE types'), and is distinct from sibling tools like calculate_iva which perform calculations.

  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 vs alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (calculation/validation) makes it apparent. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, but for a simple list operation this is acceptable.

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

• validate_duiA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Describes the validation checks (format and modulo-10 check digit) and the return object structure {valid, reason?}. No annotations provided, but description covers key behaviors.

  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 concise sentences with all essential information. No extraneous text.

  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?

  Complete for a single-parameter validation tool. Explains input format, validation logic, and output structure. No output schema exists, but return type is specified.

  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?

  Adds format details and example (e.g. 01234567-8) beyond the schema's simple parameter description. Schema coverage is 100%, but description enhances understanding.

  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 tool explicitly states it validates a Salvadoran DUI, a specific document type. It distinguishes from siblings like validate_nit by naming the document.

  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 purpose is clear but no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like validate_nit. Usage is implied by the document type.

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

• calculate_ivaA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description discloses the rounding to 2 decimals and the return object {subtotal, iva, total}. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it adequately covers the behavioral traits for a simple calculation, though edge cases or errors are not mentioned.

  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?

  Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy or excess words.

  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?

  Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers all needed aspects: purpose, parameter behavior, return structure. No output schema exists, but the description explains the return object. Sibling tools are unrelated, so no additional context is required.

  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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the default behavior of includesIva (defaults to false) and how amount is interpreted in each mode, beyond the schema's type and required information.

  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 explicitly states it computes El Salvador IVA at 13%, clearly distinguishing the tool from sibling tools like list_dte_types, validate_dui, and validate_nit. It specifies the two modes (net vs. gross amount) and the return structure.

  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 explains when to use the tool (when needing IVA calculation for El Salvador) and the two scenarios based on includesIva. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the sibling tools are unrelated, making the context clear.

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

• validate_nitA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explains behavior (format validation, hyphens flexible), and return structure ({valid, normalized, reason?}). Lacks details on normalization format (e.g., hyphens added or not).

  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 concise sentences packed with essential information: purpose, format, input flexibility, and output structure. No wasted words.

  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?

  Given the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all needed aspects: what it does, how input is handled, and what is returned. Fully sufficient for correct agent usage.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  One required parameter (nit) with 100% schema coverage. Description adds semantic value: clarifies input flexibility (with or without hyphens) and gives format example, beyond the schema's description.

  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 clearly states the tool validates the format of El Salvador NIT, specifying the exact digit pattern and common formatting. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like validate_dui by targeting a different identifier.

  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?

  Explicitly notes 'format-only' which implies it does not check existence or other validity, guiding when to use vs. more comprehensive validation. Context from siblings aids differentiation, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions.

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