Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• add_transactionA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses the return value (transaction plus running total), amount sign convention, and the category existence requirement, which is meaningful behavioral context. It does not cover failure modes or side effects beyond insertion.

  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 compact: a one-sentence purpose followed by three terse parameter bullets. Every sentence adds information and it is easily scannable.

  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?

  Although the core purpose is clear, the tool is incomplete for a 5-parameter no-annotation, no-output-schema case: 'source' is required but undefined, and there's no guidance on when to use add_transaction versus categorize_transaction. Error or rejection behavior for invalid categories is also unexplored.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  The description explains date, amount, and category, adding useful meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it omits the required 'source' parameter entirely and also does not explain 'note,' leaving 2 of 5 parameters undocumented despite 0% schema coverage.

  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 opens with 'Insert a transaction and return it plus the category's running total for its month,' clearly identifying a create operation with a specific return value. The verb 'Insert' and resource 'transaction' distinguish it from read-only siblings like get_spending_summary and from categorize_transaction.

  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 creating new transactions but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions of alternatives like categorize_transaction. It does state a prerequisite (category must already exist), but does not say when to choose this tool over a sibling.

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

• get_spending_summaryA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that only transactions with amount < 0 are considered, dates are inclusive, and custom periods require start/end dates. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe the output structure or any side effects, leaving room for ambiguity.

  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: a one-sentence purpose followed by parameter details. Every sentence contributes value, and the format makes the information easily scannable for an agent.

  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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description documents parameters well but does not explain what the summary output looks like (e.g., totals, counts, breakdown structure). An agent may not know how to interpret the returned data, which is a notable gap given the lack of an output schema.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains all parameters: allowed values for period and group_by, the requirement for start_date/end_date when period='custom', and the ISO 8601 format with inclusive behavior. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare 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 identifies the tool as summarizing expense transactions (amount < 0) over a period, grouped by category or source. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (ping, add_transaction, categorize_transaction) by focusing on aggregate read-only analysis rather than mutations or health checks.

  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 clear context for when to use the tool (summarizing expenses) and explains the period and grouping options. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling context and the explanatory parameter notes make the intended usage clear.

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

• pingA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It indicates a non-destructive verification purpose but does not specify what the tool returns, whether it has side effects, or any caveats. For a trivial ping tool, this is acceptable but not richly transparent.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's 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 the tool's simplicity, the description is largely complete. It doesn't explain the return value, but an output schema exists, so that information is likely covered structurally. The placeholder wording appropriately signals limited utility.

  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, so the schema covers everything (100%). According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters, and the description need not add parameter semantics.

  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 a specific verb and resource: 'verify the server is wired up correctly.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on transaction operations, making its health-check purpose unambiguous.

  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 phrase 'to verify the server is wired up correctly' gives a clear context for when to use this tool. Although it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, the purpose inherently implies it's for initial connectivity checks, and there are no competing tools for this behavior.

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

• categorize_transactionA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations available, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that an LLM is used, that the category is validated against a fixed list, that invalid categories surface as errors, and it specifies the return fields (category, confidence, reasoning). This goes beyond basic expectations and provides meaningful 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the purpose. The only minor issue is the use of 'description:' on a separate line, which could be slightly confusing because it mirrors the tool's own description field. Otherwise, it is structured logically and contains no wasted content.

  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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description covers all essential context: input format with example, output structure with allowed categories and confidence range, and error behavior. Nothing critical is missing for the agent to invoke and interpret the result correctly.

  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?

  The schema provides no description for the single 'description' parameter, so the tool description compensates by defining it as 'raw text as it might appear on a statement' with a concrete example ('TESCO STORES 3421 LONDON'). This gives the agent clear semantic understanding that the schema lacks.

  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 function: 'Suggest a budget category for a raw transaction description via an LLM classifier.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and it is distinct from sibling tools like add_transaction or get_spending_summary, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

  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 context strongly implies when to use this tool: whenever a raw transaction description needs a budget category. It includes an example of the expected input and explains the return structure, making the use case clear. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, so it falls 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.