Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• mint_tokenA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the funding requirement and fast registration, but fails to disclose that the tool broadcasts a transaction, spends real satoshis, or that dryRun defaults to true—critical information for a minting operation that affects real funds.

  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 sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, outcome, and prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the action and includes no filler or redundant 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?

  The description covers the core purpose, prerequisite, and post-mint behavior, which is adequate for a moderately complex tool with a rich schema. It omits the dryRun/execution semantics, but these are documented in the input schema, so the description does not need to repeat them.

  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 all five parameters are thoroughly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, meeting the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

  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 ('Mint one token into the wallet') and the outcome ('appears in Assets within seconds'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like minter_status, minter_fund, and mint_activate_bsv21 by focusing on the minting action rather than status checks, funding, or protocol activation.

  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 instructs to 'check minter_status first' as a prerequisite, providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct users to minter_fund or mint_activate_bsv21, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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

• minter_fundA
  3.9/5.0
  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 two important behavioral traits: the interactive spending-authorization prompt and the blocking wait for spendability. It does not mention failure modes or that it creates an on-chain transaction, but 'top up' and 'user's own wallet' imply a real transfer of funds.

  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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and the second sentence adds crucial behavioral detail. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

  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 state-changing operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the action, the user prompt, and the wait, but it does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., transaction ID) or what happens if the user rejects the prompt. It is adequate for basic understanding but lacks some contextual depth for an agent to fully anticipate tool behavior.

  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%, and the schema itself provides excellent semantics (e.g., dryRun preview vs broadcast, satoshis amount with typical guidance, splitInto with STAS context). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

  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 ('Top up the minter') and the source ('user's own BSV Desktop wallet'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like mint_token or minter_status. The verb-resource pairing is specific and unambiguous.

  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?

  Usage is implied: top up the minter when it needs funds before minting. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. The sibling tools exist but are not referenced in the description.

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

• mint_activate_bsv21A
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 discloses key behavior: 'Polls for the fee address, then pays it 2000 sats,' revealing both the fee payment and the external action. It could mention irreversibility, but the dryRun parameter in the schema partially covers that.

  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 three concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, clarifying when it is needed, and describing the process. No waste 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 tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the condition for use, and the expected behavior. It is fully sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

  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 detailed descriptions for both tokenId and dryRun, so the description does not need to explain them. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides, meriting the baseline score.

  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 states 'Activate a BSV-21 token id with GorillaPool' – a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes the tool from siblings by noting it is 'only needed for external discovery,' clarifying it is not for minting or funding.

  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 clear context: 'Only needed for external discovery' and 'the wallet already shows the token without this,' indicating when not to use. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the purpose and siblings make the distinction obvious.

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

• minter_statusA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It states 'Read-only, spends nothing', which is a critical behavioral trait. It also enumerates the exact checks performed, giving the agent a clear picture of what the tool does without side effects.

  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 two sentences long, the first states the purpose and checks, the second adds the read-only trait and calling order. Every word is informative, with no repetition of schema or annotation data.

  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 read-only status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what is checked, that it's safe, and when to call it. It does not describe the return format, but the enumerated checks give a reasonable expectation of the output.

  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 is trivially 100% covered. The description adds no parameter-specific information because none is needed. This aligns with the baseline of 4 for tools with no 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?

  The description clearly states the tool checks minter status, with specific items (funding address, spendable balance, BSV Desktop running/signed in/network). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like minter_fund, mint_token, and mint_activate_bsv21, which perform actions rather than status checks.

  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 says 'Call this first', providing clear guidance on when to use this tool. It does not mention when-not to use it or explicitly compare with alternatives, but the sibling tools' names make their purposes obvious, and the instruction to call first implies it is a prerequisite.

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