Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• arxiv_fetch_paper_textA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description discloses the fallback mechanism (HTML vs abstract) and character limit, but omits details like error handling, rate limits, or authentication. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and provides moderate transparency.

  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 with five sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose, fallback, usage, parameter, return. No fluff.

  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 simple tool with one required parameter and clear output, the description is largely complete. However, it fails to mention the response_format parameter, which is documented in the schema but not in the description.

  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 description adds value for the paper_id parameter with an example and relationship to arxiv_get_paper. However, it omits the response_format parameter, which has a default and enum. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates.

  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 it fetches readable text content of an arXiv paper, and explicitly distinguishes from siblings by advising to use arxiv_get_paper first to find the ID. This provides a specific verb and resource with clear differentiation.

  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 gives a clear workflow: use arxiv_get_paper to get the ID, then call this tool. It also explains fallback behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention any exclusions.

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

• arxiv_list_by_categoryA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It explains default sorting by submission date, parameter effects, and output format (paginated list). Does not mention rate limits or auth, but given the read-only nature, this is acceptable.

  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?

  Description is well-structured with Args, Returns, and a categorized list of common category codes. Every sentence adds value, and critical information is front-loaded.

  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 high schema coverage, presence of an output schema, and modest complexity, the description fully addresses the tool's functionality. Includes common category codes for easy reference.

  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 descriptions already cover all parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds marginal value beyond the schema. The listing of common category codes is helpful but not essential for understanding parameters.

  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?

  States specific verb 'List' and resource 'papers in a specific arXiv subject category'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like arxiv_search (which searches across categories) and arxiv_get_paper (single paper).

  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 says 'Useful for monitoring a research area's latest preprints', providing clear context. Does not explicitly exclude when not to use or mention alternatives, but the purpose differentiation from siblings is implied.

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

• arxiv_get_paperA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully details the return fields (title, authors, abstract, etc.) and response format options. It does not mention rate limits or side effects, but as a read operation, transparency is adequate.

  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: summary line, bullet-like field list, clear args section, return description, and examples. Front-loaded with purpose, no redundant sentences.

  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 retrieval tool with an output schema (implied from JSON fields), the description covers inputs, outputs, and examples completely. No gaps remain.

  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 description adds significant value beyond the schema: provides paper_id format examples (including old-style IDs), lists both response_format options, and gives concrete usage examples. Schema descriptions are also present 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 description clearly states the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'full metadata for a specific arXiv paper by its ID.' It distinguishes from siblings like arxiv_search (search) and arxiv_fetch_paper_text (full text).

  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 implies usage for retrieving metadata by ID, with examples. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or specify alternatives, but the sibling tool names provide context.

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

• arxiv_searchA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations provided; description fully discloses pagination, result format, and supported operators. 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.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  Well-structured with clear sections: purpose, parameters, returns, examples. Slightly verbose but no unnecessary 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?

  Covers query syntax, pagination, sort options, response formats, and output schema. Complete given tool complexity.

  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 already includes detailed descriptions for all parameters. Description adds value with examples and output JSON schema, but schema already covers semantics well.

  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?

  Clearly states 'Search arXiv for academic papers' and explains query syntax. Distinguishes from sibling tools like arxiv_fetch_paper_text which focus on fetching full text.

  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?

  Provides examples and parameter details but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs siblings. Guidance is implied through examples and description.

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