Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• hermesplant_llms_catalogA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'returns plain text documentation and does not execute paid work', which is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations.

  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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences with no redundant information. Every sentence adds value: first states the action, second provides usage and behavior.

  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?

  For a simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does (returns plain text documentation) and its purpose (onboarding context). No gaps.

  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?

  There are zero parameters, so baseline score is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning since there are none.

  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 it fetches the /llms.txt catalog for onboarding context. It specifies the purpose: 'to understand the available deterministic finance, quant, safety, and payment-policy services'. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the usage context is clear.

  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 usage guidance: 'Use this to understand the available ... services before selecting an endpoint.' This tells the agent when to use it. It doesn't mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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

• hermesplant_api_catalogA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses read-only nature, no paid API calls, and returns raw JSON text. Adds value beyond annotations (e.g., well-known URL, no cost). Consistent with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint.

  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 sentences: first defines purpose, second provides usage and behavioral notes. No wasted words, front-loaded with key action.

  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?

  For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, description covers key aspects: endpoint, content, and cost. Could elaborate on response structure, but sufficient for basic selection.

  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; schema coverage is 100% trivially. Description correctly omits parameter details. Baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tool.

  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 verb 'fetches', resource 'RFC 9727-style API catalog from /.well-known/api-catalog', and scope (machine-readable service discovery, OpenAPI links, etc.). Differentiates from siblings by specifying its unique output.

  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 states when to use ('when a client needs machine-readable service discovery...'). Does not list alternatives or when not to use, but context is clear given sibling tools serve different purposes.

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

• hermesplant_mcp_server_cardA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by specifying the return format ('raw JSON text') and financial safety ('does not connect to a wallet or spend funds'), going beyond what annotations provide.

  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 (two sentences), front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

  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 and no output schema, the description fully explains its purpose, return value, and safety characteristics. There are no gaps in understanding how to use the tool.

  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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics as there are none.

  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 action ('Fetches Hermes Plant's MCP server descriptor') and the resource ('/.well-known/mcp/server-card.json'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like hermesplant_llms_catalog by specifying the exact endpoint and 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 description explains when to use the tool: 'Use this to discover the hosted Streamable HTTP MCP endpoint, advertised capabilities, pricing policy, and integration metadata.' It also notes it is read-only and does not spend funds, but lacks explicit when-not or alternative tools.

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

• hermesplant_x402_manifestA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes beyond by explicitly confirming it returns raw JSON text and never performs payment-related actions. No contradictions.

  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 sentences with no wasted words. The purpose and behavioral constraints are front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

  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 no output schema, the description explains the content of the returned data (network, asset, facilitator, etc.) and the tool's read-only nature. It fully covers the necessary context for a no-parameter tool.

  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 has zero parameters with 100% coverage via description. The description does not add parameter-level meaning since there are none, which is acceptable. Baseline of 3 applies.

  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 fetches the live x402 manifest from a specific well-known endpoint. It uses specific verbs ('Fetches... manifest from...') and resource naming, which is distinct from sibling tools that list hosted tools or catalogs.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this before paid API or MCP calls'. Also clarifies what it does not do: 'never signs payments, approves wallet transactions, calls paid endpoints, or spends funds'. This provides clear guidance on appropriate usage.

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

• hermesplant_list_hosted_toolsA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds 'does not invoke paid tools, sign wallet messages, approve payments, or spend USDC,' providing concrete behavioral boundaries that are not in annotations.

  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 precise sentences, no redundancy. First sentence states core purpose, second adds usage context and behavioral implications. Every sentence justifies its existence.

  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 no output schema and rich annotations, description fully covers purpose, usage, and behavioral traits. Mentions endpoint type (Streamable HTTP MCP) for additional 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 in schema (100% coverage). Description does not need to add parameter info; baseline 4 applies.

  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 it lists tools from Hermes Plant's hosted endpoint, distinguishing it from sibling catalog tools that serve different purposes. Verb 'list' and resource 'hosted tools' are specific.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly says 'Use this to inspect tool names, descriptions, and input schemas before wiring an x402-capable runtime.' Also lists what it does not do, helping agents avoid misuse.

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