Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_assetsA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses that returned previews are watermarked and can be used directly, and that the license page is for purchase. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden well, though it omits details like pagination or rate limits.

  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 with no wasted words. First sentence establishes purpose and scope, second sentence details output and usage.

  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?

  Adequate for a search tool with moderate complexity. Describes return type and usage of results, but lacks details on response structure (e.g., fields in each result) and does not mention default limit or pagination. Could be more complete given no output schema.

  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?

  All parameters have schema descriptions, and the description provides a query example but adds no further semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

  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?

  Description clearly states it searches a royalty-free catalog with specific asset counts and types. It distinguishes the search action from siblings like get_asset or download_preview, but does not explicitly differentiate from get_categories.

  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?

  Implies usage for finding stock images/videos, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_asset or download_preview. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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

• get_assetA
  3.8/5.0
  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. It states the tool 'Get full details' but does not describe what 'full details' includes, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The behavior is simple (read operation) so the gap is moderate.

  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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and key detail (File_ID). No redundant words or information.

  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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is sufficient to understand the tool's purpose and usage. It lacks specifics about the return structure, but 'full details' is an acceptable abstraction for a simple retrieval 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% for the single parameter 'id', and the schema already describes it as 'The asset's File_ID'. The description adds an example ('e.g. 20260622_01471'), which is helpful but not essential. Baseline is 3.

  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 ('Get'), resource ('full details for one asset'), and the key identifier (Stockflow File_ID). It distinguishes from siblings like download_preview, get_categories, and search_assets by focusing on retrieving all details of a single asset by its unique ID.

  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 implies usage when you have a specific File_ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_assets for finding assets, download_preview for a preview). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions are provided.

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

• download_previewA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It reveals the file is watermarked and that licensing is needed for full resolution. However, it omits details like idempotency, potential errors, or confirmation of successful download.

  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 with no waste. First sentence provides verb, resource, and purpose. Second sentence clarifies the alternative for full resolution. Front-loaded and efficient.

  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 no output schema or annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's purpose and when to use the alternative. It might benefit from mentioning success/failure feedback, but is sufficient for a straightforward download.

  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%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds minor context ('watermarked preview') but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond schema descriptions.

  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 downloads a watermarked preview file for embedding, distinguishing it from the full-resolution licensed file and siblings like get_asset which deals with metadata.

  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 tells when to use this tool (for previews in presentations) and when to use the licensing page for full-resolution files. It does not explicitly exclude other siblings but context is clear.

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

• get_categoriesA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool lists categories with cover images and counts, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or mention any 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 the action, and no unnecessary words. 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 simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the output contents (cover images, counts) and usage hint. It could briefly describe the return format, but 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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). Per guidelines, baseline is 4 when there are 0 parameters. The description adds no param info as none exist.

  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 lists Stockflow.media's asset categories with cover images and asset counts, using a specific verb 'List' and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings like search_assets (which searches assets) and get_asset (which gets a single asset).

  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 includes 'Useful to explore what's available before searching,' hinting at usage before search_assets, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. More explicit guidance would improve clarity.

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