Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• pay_sendB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states that USDC is transferred, but omits important consequences such as irrevocability, gas fees, need for wallet authorization, or network confirmation. This is a significant gap for a payment tool.

  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 brief and front-loaded with the main verb and resource. However, 'Transfers USDC to the specified address' is somewhat redundant with 'Send USDC payment', so it is not maximally concise.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover the full context. It does not mention return values (e.g., transaction hash), failure modes, or prerequisites, leaving an agent underprepared for the actual outcome of the tool.

  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%—to, amount, and memo are already well documented. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond restating the recipient, so the 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 uses a specific verb 'Send' and resource 'USDC payment on Base', clearly stating the action and target. It is distinguishable from siblings like pay_balance, pay_request, and pay_history because it focuses on transferring USDC out to an address.

  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 usage context is implied: use this tool to send USDC payments. However, it does not explicitly compare with pay_request or pay_balance, and gives no exclusions or alternative tool guidance, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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

• pay_requestA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions generating a link and does not state whether authentication is required, if the link expires, if there are fees, or what side effects occur (e.g., saved to history). For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

  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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every word 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 simple params, no output schema), the description covers the main functionality and implies the return value (the payment link). It could be improved by explicitly stating that the link is returned and whether it is saved, but it is sufficient for a straightforward tool.

  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 'amount' and 'memo' described. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not elaborate on format nuances or additional context.

  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's function: generating a payment request that creates a link for others to send USDC. The verb 'generate' and resource 'payment request' are specific, and the distinction from siblings (pay_balance, pay_send, pay_history) is apparent.

  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 clear context: this tool is for receiving USDC via a payment link, which implies use when you want to request payment. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the sibling names make the differentiation obvious, falling just short of explicit 'when-not' guidance.

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

• pay_historyA
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It adds a useful trait ('Shows both sent and received transfers'), but does not clarify recency bounds, authentication requirements, or the response shape. It is not misleading but is minimal.

  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 exactly two sentences, with the core purpose in the first sentence and a clarifying detail in the second. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information, making it highly concise 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?

  For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, scope, and a distinguishing behavior. It lacks explicit details about return format or recency semantics, but given the tool's simplicity, the description is nearly complete for selection and invocation.

  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% for the single 'limit' parameter, so the schema fully documents its meaning. The description does not add additional parameter context, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, thus baseline 3 applies.

  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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('USDC transaction history'), with a clear network context ('on Base'). It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from siblings by stating it shows both sent and received transfers, making it clearly a history tool versus balance/send/request functions.

  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?

  Provides clear context for when to use the tool (to retrieve recent transaction history on Base). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, such as 'use pay_balance for current balance' or 'use pay_send to create transactions'.

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

• pay_balanceA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 states that the tool 'returns the balance' and implies a read-only operation via 'Check', but it does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating or describe behavior for invalid addresses or edge cases.

  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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and key parameter behavior without any 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?

  For a simple tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the core context: what it checks, on which network, and who it applies to. However, it does not describe the return format, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema.

  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% and the description adds meaning by explaining the optional address parameter ('your wallet or a specified address'). This reinforces the schema and clarifies the default behavior when no address is provided.

  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 USDC balance on Base, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pay_send, pay_request, and pay_history by focusing solely on balance checking.

  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 implies when to use this tool (to check USDC balance) and provides context about the Base network and optional address parameter. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would make it a 5.

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