Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_historical_data_v2B
  3/5.0
  Behavior1/5

  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 only states the basic action without mentioning what technical indicators are included, whether they are calculated or pre-existing, data adjustment policies, or any rate limits. No behavioral traits are disclosed beyond the generic verb.

  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 clear sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and quickly readable.

  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?

  The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must compensate by explaining what 'technical indicators' means and what the response looks like. It does not, leaving significant ambiguity about the returned data structure and indicator specifics.

  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% for all four parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The description adds no additional parameter context, earning the baseline 3.

  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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'historical price data' with 'technical indicators', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_stock_data_v2 and get_options_chain_v2. The 'historical' qualifier provides clear scope.

  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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_stock_data_v2 might be for current data or how historical data with indicators differs. There is no explicit context or exclusions.

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

• get_options_chain_v2B
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It only says 'Get' and mentions 'advanced greeks and analysis', without disclosing output format, limitations, or whether it is purely read-only. This leaves significant behavioral aspects unexplained.

  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, compact sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get options chain data') and adds a brief qualifier. It is appropriately concise, though slightly vague on 'analysis'.

  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?

  With no output schema, the description should clarify what is returned and behavior around optional parameters like expiration_date. It only states 'options chain data' and 'greeks', leaving the overall context incomplete for an agent to predict tool behavior reliably.

  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 covers all three parameters with descriptions, and the tool description adds minimal extra semantics beyond hinting at greeks (aligned with include_greeks). This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage, as the description does not compensate for any gaps.

  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 'Get' and the specific resource 'options chain data', with additional detail on 'advanced greeks and analysis'. This definitively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_stock_data_v2 and get_historical_data_v2, which focus on different data types.

  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?

  No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the resource type ('options chain') implies its usage context. It lacks any exclusions or mentions of when not to use it, so it only reaches implied usage level per the rubric.

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

• get_stock_data_v2A
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what data is included, but does not disclose return format, default behavior (e.g., whether all categories are included by default), or any side effects. It is adequate for a read-only 'get' tool but not rich in caveats or 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?

  A single, front-loaded sentence that immediately identifies the tool's purpose and scope. Every phrase earns its place ('comprehensive stock data' plus three specific categories) with zero redundancy. Excellent conciseness.

  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 moderate complexity (four parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently conveys what the tool returns by listing the three data categories. It could be more complete by noting behavior when include flags are missing, but the schema already covers parameters. Overall, enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

  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%, so the schema fully documents each parameter. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond listing categories already covered by the schema (financials, ratings, calendar). Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly defines the resource ('comprehensive stock data') plus the included categories (financials, analyst ratings, calendar events). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_historical_data_v2 and get_options_chain_v2, which focus on price history and options chains respectively.

  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 phrase 'comprehensive stock data' implies this is the go-to tool for financials, ratings, and calendar info, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings or when not to use it. No alternative tools are mentioned, leaving usage context to the reader's inference from sibling names.

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