Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• kickbacks_configA
  3.5/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It appropriately states that the tool is safe and never exposes secrets, adding useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, or other operational details.

  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 two sentences: the first states the primary purpose and the second adds a safety note. It is well-structured, front-loaded with key information, and contains no superfluous content.

  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 simple nature of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient information about its function and safety. It does not explain how output differs from the sibling tool kickbacks_status, but for a config check, it is largely complete.

  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 and the schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details as there are none. It meets the baseline expectation for parameter-less tools.

  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: checking Kickbacks.ai configuration status, including whether the API key is set and providing setup instructions. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like kickbacks_status, though the verb 'Check' and resource 'configuration status' 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 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, such as kickbacks_set_enabled for updates or kickbacks_status for overall status. It only mentions safety ('Safe to call') but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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

• kickbacks_earningsA
  4.1/5.0
  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. It mentions the API key requirement, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like idempotency, rate limits, or error behavior. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

  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, no waste. Front-loaded with the action and result, followed by a prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place.

  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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It specifies exactly what time periods are included in the earnings breakdown, covering the tool's entire functionality.

  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 schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining what the return data includes (breakdown by time period), which is useful beyond the empty schema.

  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 gets earnings breakdown by time period (today, this week, this month, all-time total), which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like kickbacks_ads_history or kickbacks_balance.

  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 mentions the required environment variable but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. Usage context is implied but not explicitly compared.

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

• kickbacks_statusA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains what status fields are returned (connected, authenticated, enabled, caps) and the prerequisite. Lacks mention of rate limits or error behavior but is sufficient for a simple read-only status check.

  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 concise sentences with no redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose and details.

  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?

  Despite no output schema, description clearly enumerates the status fields. Provides prerequisite. For a zero-parameter tool, this is complete enough.

  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 exist, so baseline is 4. Description does not need to add param info, and it correctly lists prerequisites instead.

  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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Kickbacks.ai connection status and earning state'. Lists specific details shown, and distinguishes from sibling tools that deal with history, balance, config, etc.

  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?

  Mentions the required environment variable but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like kickbacks_balance or kickbacks_config. Usage context is implied but not directly guided.

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

• kickbacks_ads_historyA
  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 full burden. It discloses that it requires an API key, supports pagination, and lists return fields (ad, campaign, surface, event type, revenue, clicked). This is good, though it doesn't explicitly state it's read-only or mention error handling.

  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 concise sentences. First explains purpose, second adds surface details, pagination, and API key requirement. No unnecessary words.

  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 simple tool (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), description covers purpose, returned fields, pagination, and API key requirement. No gaps for effective use.

  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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for limit and offset. The description only adds that pagination is supported, which is redundant with schema. No additional parameter meaning beyond what schema provides.

  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 the tool gets recent ad impression and click history, with specific verb and resource. It lists fields returned (ad, campaign, surface, event type, revenue, clicked), distinguishing it from siblings like kickbacks_balance or kickbacks_earnings.

  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?

  Description mentions pagination and required API key, implying usage context. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but siblings are clearly distinct (balance, config, etc.), so usage is contextually clear.

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

• kickbacks_balanceA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Without annotations, the description adequately covers the behavior: it is a read operation that returns the balance. It also discloses the authentication requirement, which is a behavioral trait.

  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 three sentences, each adding value: purpose, detail, and support contact. No unnecessary words.

  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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and a prerequisite. It could mention the return format, but it is not critical for a simple balance check.

  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 no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information, but it adds value by noting the environment variable requirement.

  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 'Get current Kickbacks.ai balance' and specifies that it shows total earnings available for withdrawal. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kickbacks_earnings and kickbacks_status.

  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 explicitly mentions the prerequisite of the KICKBACKS_API_KEY environment variable and provides contact information for API access, giving clear context for when to use the tool.

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

• kickbacks_set_enabledA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the immediate behavioral impact (ads shown/not shown, earnings accrue/not) and a prerequisite. Could be improved by noting persistence, but is clear and honest.

  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 efficient sentences: first states the purpose, second provides behavioral details and a requirement. No filler or repetition.

  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 boolean toggle with no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and a crucial environmental prerequisite. It is fully sufficient for correct invocation.

  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 coverage is 100% with a basic description. The tool description adds value by explaining the real-world consequences of true and false values (ads appear, earnings accrue) and the required env var, going beyond the schema.

  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 the specific verb 'Enable or disable' and identifies the resource 'Kickbacks.ai ads'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like kickbacks_ads_history or kickbacks_balance, which handle different aspects.

  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 the effects of enabled versus disabled states, providing context for when to use the tool. It mentions the environment variable requirement but does not explicitly contrast with siblings, though siblings are sufficiently distinct.

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