Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• show_ordinalsB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does disclose important behavioral traits: it fetches inscription data, saves images locally, returns a local_file_path, and is part of a mandatory two-response workflow. It explains that code 'currently does NOT return a separate displayable source, only the local path' which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness1/5

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

  The description is extremely verbose (over 800 words) and poorly structured for a tool definition. It's front-loaded with workflow instructions rather than tool purpose. Most content is about the mandatory two-response process, fallback mechanisms, and response formats rather than concisely describing the tool itself. Every sentence does not earn its place in a tool description context.

  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?

  Given 3 parameters with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides extensive workflow context but lacks critical tool-specific information. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (beyond mentioning local_file_path for images), error conditions, or performance characteristics. The workflow instructions are comprehensive but don't compensate for missing tool behavior documentation.

  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 already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions the tool fetches inscription data but doesn't explain how parameters affect this process. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose2/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states 'Fetches inscription data' which is a vague purpose statement. While it mentions Bitcoin Ordinals context, it doesn't specify what data is fetched (metadata, content, both) or how it differs from other potential tools. The description is primarily workflow instructions rather than a clear tool purpose definition.

  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?

  The description provides explicit, detailed guidance on when to use this tool: 'MANDATORY FIRST STEP' for processing Bitcoin Ordinal inscriptions, specifically for images where it must save locally and return the local_file_path. It clearly states this is step 1 of a two-step workflow and specifies when to use sibling tools (image_processor/vision) in step 2.

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