Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• optimai_cancel_searchA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It provides the behavioral constraint that only running/pending searches can be cancelled, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on success, failure, or whether cancellation is irreversible, leaving some gaps.

  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, direct sentence with no redundant words or fluff. It conveys the action and key constraint efficiently.

  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 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and key state constraint. It doesn't describe return values or error handling, but given the low complexity, this is adequate and mostly 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?

  The schema documents the single parameter 'id' fully ('The search ID to cancel'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies due to 100% 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 uses a specific verb 'cancel' and identifies the resource as a search by ID. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like optimai_search, optimai_get_search, optimai_list_searches, and optimai_start_search.

  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?

  It states the tool applies to running or pending searches and explicitly lists non-cancellable states (completed, failed, already-cancelled), giving clear applicability boundaries. It doesn't mention alternatives but the context is sufficient for when to use this tool.

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

• optimai_get_searchA
  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 transparency burden. It communicates a read-only nature via 'retrieve' and notes it returns 'status and result', but does not explicitly state non-destructive behavior, error handling, or whether the response is immediate. This is minimal but adequate for a simple retrieval 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?

  Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and no wasted words. The second sentence adds practical usage context, earning a perfect score.

  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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, and hints at polling behavior for in-progress searches. It does not specify response format or error scenarios, but these are less critical given the simple scope.

  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%, and the schema already describes the 'id' parameter as the search ID returned by optimai_search or optimai_list_searches. The description's phrase 'by its ID' adds no new semantic detail, 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 tool retrieves the current status and result of a previously created search by ID. It uses specific verbs ('retrieve') and identifies the resource ('search'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like optimai_search, optimai_list_searches, and optimai_cancel_search.

  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: it's useful for checking a search that was started earlier or is still in progress. It implies when to use this tool over listing all searches, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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

• optimai_list_searchesA
  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 transparency burden. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation ('List recent searches made with this API key') but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as ordering of results, whether full search objects or summaries are returned, or any API-specific constraints beyond the API key scoping.

  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-loads the core action ('List recent searches'), and uses no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the essential operation and the key supported filtering options.

  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, resource scope, and filtering/pagination capabilities. However, without an output schema, it does not specify the return format or ordering, and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from optimai_get_search beyond the plural vs. singular contrast. Still, for a straightforward list endpoint, the information is sufficient 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?

  All five parameters are documented with descriptions in the input schema, achieving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's summary of 'filtering by status, date range, and pagination' adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.

  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 the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'recent searches' and scopes it to 'this API key', making the operation unambiguous. It also mentions filtering by status, date range, and pagination, which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like optimai_search, optimai_get_search, optimai_cancel_search, and optimai_start_search.

  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 establishes a clear context for use: listing recent searches for the current API key. While it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., 'use optimai_get_search for a single search'), the plural 'searches' and the mention of pagination and filtering implicitly differentiate it from the single-search retrieval tool.

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

• optimai_searchA
  4.2/5.0
  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 and does well by disclosing key behaviors: it 'waits briefly for results,' returns a 'structured answer with citations when ready,' and returns the search ID if the search is still running. This goes beyond a simple statement of action and gives the agent important expectations about response patterns.

  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?

  Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then behavioral detail, then usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or padding.

  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 tool has moderate complexity and no output schema, so the description must explain return values—and it does, covering both the ready-result case (structured answer with citations) and the async case (search ID). It also references the logical follow-up tool. It could be even more explicit about error conditions or the exact shape of citations, but the core is covered.

  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 the schema already documents all three parameters with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning about parameters themselves; it only frames the query as Web3-focused. This meets the baseline for schema-heavy coverage but doesn't go further.

  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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run a Web3-focused AI search on the OptimAI decentralised network.' It clearly differentiates from siblings by explaining its wait-and-return behavior and how it relates to optimai_get_search, making the tool's unique role obvious.

  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 usage context: 'Use this when the user wants up-to-date information about crypto, DeFi, NFTs, blockchain projects, or any on-chain topic.' It also implicitly contrasts with optimai_get_search by noting that if the search is still running, it returns the search ID for later fetching. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives like optimai_start_search.

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

• optimai_start_searchA
  4.4/5.0
  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 that the tool is asynchronous (returns immediately), provides a search ID for polling, and notes the expected search duration. This is strong behavioral context, though it omits details like ID expiration or error conditions.

  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 tightly worded sentences. The first states purpose and outcome; the second explains why and what to do next. No filler, all information 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?

  For a simple one-parameter async tool, the description covers the key behavioral flow: start, get ID, poll with get_search. It lacks an explicit return field name (e.g., 'search_id') and error-handling notes, but these are minor given the tool's low complexity.

  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?

  The single parameter 'query' is already well-documented in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds Web3/decentralized context but does not materially expand on the schema's 'The search query to start on the OptimAI network'. Baseline 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 ('Start'), identifies the resource ('Web3-focused AI search on the OptimAI decentralised network'), and clarifies the immediate outcome ('return immediately with a search ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like optimai_get_search, which fetches results.

  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?

  The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('searches commonly take 60-90 seconds or the MCP host has short tool-call timeouts') and directs the user to the next step ('Call optimai_get_search with the returned ID'). This provides clear context and a named alternative, satisfying the highest bar.

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