Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• mayhem_balanceC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It implies a read-only query but does not specify behavior when called (e.g., error on '暫未支援'). The lack of detail on response or side effects reduces transparency.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is short (two lines) but the first line mixes purpose with a note about not being supported, which could be separated. It is not overly verbose, but the structure could be cleaner.

  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?

  Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description lacks details about the output format or what happens when the tool is called while not supported. The tool is simple, but the '暫未支援' note suggests incompleteness in functionality, making it less 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 description adds valuable context to the 'champion' parameter, specifying it accepts both Chinese and English names (英雄名稱,中英文皆可). This goes beyond the schema's simple type string, and with 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well.

  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 queries balance values for ARAM: Mayhem mode, distinguishing it from sibling aram_balance which likely targets normal ARAM. The note '暫未支援' indicates it is not yet functional, which could confuse but does not obscure the intended purpose.

  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?

  No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like aram_balance. Does not specify prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate despite the '暫未支援' warning.

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

• list_augmentsB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. The description only states the basic function and output format. It does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, sorting order, or what happens with invalid parameters. This lack of behavioral context is a significant gap for a tool that likely performs a read operation.

  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 relatively concise, with the main purpose in the first sentence. The parameter details are presented in a bullet-like format that is easy to scan. However, it could be more structured (e.g., using a table or explicit argument list) and the first line could be slightly more formal. Overall, it is efficient and front-loaded.

  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 that the tool has an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It explains the output (name + effect summary) and the filtering parameters. However, it does not mention whether the list is sorted, if there are any limits on results, or the default behavior when 'tier' is 'all'. This leaves some operational gaps for an agent to infer.

  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 schema has 0% coverage with no parameter descriptions. The description compensates by explaining 'tier' with a clear list of values and 'locale' with two options. It also notes that Chinese aliases are accepted. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's defaults, making it easy for an agent to construct valid arguments.

  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 verb ('list') and resource ('arena hex augmentation list'), and specifies the output (name + effect summary). The purpose is specific and aligns with the tool name. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'get_augment' or 'mayhem_balance', which could cause ambiguity for an AI agent.

  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 provides parameter details including allowed values for 'tier' and 'locale', and mentions Chinese aliases. It implies usage for listing augments by rarity. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_augment' for a single augment) or give any exclusion criteria, leaving some navigational ambiguity.

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

• get_augmentA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions fuzzy search and locale but omits whether the operation is read-only, pagination behavior, error handling, or any limitations. For a search tool this is insufficient transparency.

  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 relatively concise and front-loaded with purpose. The args section is clear, though including examples adds length. It efficiently conveys key info without being verbose.

  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 existence of sibling tools and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and how to use it. It could be more complete with notes on result limits or behavior, but overall adequate.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds essential meaning: it explains 'query' can be Chinese/English keywords with examples, and 'locale' specifies response language. This goes beyond the bare schema types.

  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 performs fuzzy search for Arena hex augments and returns name, rarity, and effect. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like list_augments (exact list) and aram_balance/mayhem_balance (different game modes).

  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 tool's function and provides example queries, implying when to use it (fuzzy search for augments). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with siblings, leaving some inference to the agent.

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

• aram_balanceA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses covered stats (damage dealt/taken, healing, shields, etc.) and clarifies the distinction between no adjustment and query failure. No mention of auth or rate limits, but adequate for a simple query 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 concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement, then detailed scope, followed by explicit parameter guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

  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 is a simple query with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers all necessary context. It specifies the query inputs, the range of stats, and the expected behavior for edge cases (no adjustment vs failure).

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The single parameter 'champion' has 0% schema description coverage, but the description adds significant meaning: it accepts both Chinese and English names, provides examples, and implies flexibility. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

  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 queries ARAM balance numbers for champion patches, specifying gain and nerf indicators. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_augment' and 'mayhem_balance' by focusing specifically on ARAM balance.

  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 when to use the tool (to query ARAM balance for a champion) and notes that it distinguishes between 'no adjustment' and 'query failure'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative tools.

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