Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• check_visa_requirementA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided. Description notes the tool requires an API key, which is helpful. But no mention of rate limits, error handling, or other behavioral traits.

  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, front-loaded with purpose and deliverables, no wasted 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?

  Description covers what the tool returns and when to use it. Lacks details on output format or error scenarios, but for a query tool, it is largely complete.

  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 has 100% description coverage with clear descriptions of each parameter (country codes, language). Description adds no additional meaning beyond schema.

  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?

  Clearly states it checks visa requirements between two countries and lists return details. However, does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'quick_visa_check', which may serve a similar purpose.

  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 tells when to use the tool (for visa rules, entry requirements). Does not mention when not to use or suggest alternative siblings.

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

• get_visa_changesA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Description discloses the authentication requirement ('Requires a Starter plan API key'), which adds value beyond the schema. However, no other behavioral traits like rate limits, default ordering, or pagination are mentioned, leaving some gaps given no 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?

  Four sentences with clear front-loading: first sentence states purpose, second describes returns, third lists filters, fourth gives usage guidance. No unnecessary words; each sentence earns its place.

  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 tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, filter options, auth, and usage context. It does not detail return format or any limitations, but is sufficient for basic understanding. Minor gap in not describing result ordering or count.

  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 each parameter having a description specifying ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 codes. The description adds only that filtering is optional, not providing additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline score 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?

  Description clearly states 'Get recent changes to visa policies worldwide' with specific verb and resource. It lists types of changes (updates, exemptions, modifications), differentiating from sibling tools like check_visa_requirement which handles specific inquiries.

  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 'Use this tool when the user asks about recent visa news, policy updates, or changes in entry requirements for a country.' Provides clear context for when to use but does not mention when not to use or name alternative tools for other queries.

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

• get_all_destinationsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read operation, the return format (list with visa status, stay duration, details), and the API key requirement. It does not mention rate limits or performance, but overall is informative for a non-destructive tool.

  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 sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core functionality, the second details the output, and the third provides usage context and a prerequisite. Every sentence adds value.

  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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the output (complete list of countries with details), a prerequisite (Pro plan), and use cases. It lacks explicit mention of potential limitations like pagination or timeout, but given the simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.

  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 both parameters ('passport', 'lang') well-described in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score 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 verb 'get', the resource 'visa requirements for ALL destinations', and the scope 'from a single passport country at once'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'check_visa_requirement' by emphasizing the bulk, all-destinations nature.

  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 provides explicit use cases ('travel planning, building visa maps, comparing access') and a directive ('Use this when the user wants a full overview'). It also mentions the prerequisite 'Requires a Pro plan API key'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus sibling tools.

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

• quick_visa_checkA
  4.5/5.0
  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 API key requirement, return type (only visa status), and excludes detailed documents. Lacks specifics on authentication method or error handling, but sufficient for a simple tool.

  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?

  Concise three-sentence description with all essential information front-loaded. No extraneous 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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema needed), the description fully covers what the tool returns and its limitations. No gaps for agent to use correctly.

  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 clear descriptions and examples for both parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, baseline score 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 tool checks visa requirements between two countries, returns visa status, and distinguishes from sibling tool 'check_visa_requirement' by noting it is quick and returns only status without details.

  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?

  Explicitly says when to use: simple yes/no checks or when no API key. Provides alternative: use 'check_visa_requirement' for full details. Also mentions requirement of a free API key.

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

• get_coverage_statsA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses that the endpoint is free and requires no API key, which is valuable context beyond the tool's basic function. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; it adequately covers cost/authentication behavior.

  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: first states purpose and returns, second provides usage guidance and a key behavioral note. No wasted words, information is front-loaded.

  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 no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains purpose, usage, and return data. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when to invoke.

  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; schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns, fulfilling the baseline for a zero-parameter tool.

  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 gets coverage statistics for the Orizn Visa database, listing specific metrics (passport-destination pairs, countries, languages). It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_visa_requirement by focusing on overall scope rather than individual queries.

  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?

  Explicitly states when to use: 'when the user asks about the size, scope, or coverage of the visa database.' This provides clear guidance for agent selection.

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