Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_api_infoB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the API information is returned in. The description is minimal and lacks important operational context that would help an agent use this tool effectively.

  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 that states exactly what the tool does with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

  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?

  For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally complete in stating what information will be retrieved. However, it lacks context about what 'API information' includes (version, endpoints, capabilities) and how this tool relates to the sibling analysis retrieval tools. The absence of annotations means the description should provide more behavioral context than it does.

  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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, which is correct and efficient.

  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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('NetworkLytics API information and available endpoints'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from its siblings (get_analysis_by_id, get_shared_analysis), which appear to be more specific data retrieval tools rather than metadata endpoints.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention whether this should be used for initial API discovery, health checking, or as a prerequisite for other operations. With sibling tools that retrieve specific analyses, there's no indication of the relationship or sequencing between them.

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

• get_analysis_by_idB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses authentication requirements (API key via environment variable) and return behavior (structured data similar to get_shared_analysis), which adds useful context. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or other behavioral traits like response format specifics.

  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 with two sentences that are front-loaded with key information (retrieval action and authentication). It avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage guidelines from behavioral notes.

  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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete by covering purpose and authentication. However, it lacks output details (e.g., what the structured data includes) and doesn't fully address sibling tool differentiation, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

  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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'analysis_id' as a numeric ID from NetworkLytics. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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 the action ('Retrieve') and resource ('YouTube comment network analysis by its ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_shared_analysis' beyond noting they return similar data, missing a direct comparison of when to use each.

  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 by specifying that it retrieves by ID and requires API key authentication, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_shared_analysis' or 'get_api_info'. No exclusions or clear alternatives are mentioned.

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

• get_shared_analysisA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool retrieves data from a 'public' share link and handles password-protected links (via the optional password parameter), adding useful context about access requirements. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or response format, which are important for a tool with no output schema. The description does not contradict any 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 is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by details on returns and usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value: the first explains what the tool does, the second lists outputs, and the third specifies when to use it. There is no wasted text, making it efficient and well-structured.

  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 complexity of retrieving analysis results with no output schema and no annotations, the description does a good job by detailing what is returned (e.g., network statistics, sentiment analysis) and usage context. However, it lacks information on response structure or potential errors, which could hinder an agent's ability to handle outputs correctly. It is mostly complete but has minor gaps for a tool with rich return data.

  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 input schema fully documents the parameters (token and password). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the token is for a 'public NetworkLytics share link' and mentioning password protection, but it does not provide additional syntax or format details. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description compensates slightly but not significantly.

  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 specific action ('Retrieve') and resource ('YouTube comment network analysis result from a public NetworkLytics share link'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_analysis_by_id' by specifying the share link/token input method. It provides a comprehensive list of what is returned (network statistics, top influencers, sentiment analysis, etc.), making the purpose explicit and detailed.

  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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this when a user shares a NetworkLytics share URL or token.' This provides clear context for invocation and differentiates it from alternatives like 'get_analysis_by_id' (which likely uses a different identifier). It directly addresses the usage scenario without ambiguity.

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