Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_farm_positionsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 mentions what data is retrieved (farming positions, staked LP tokens, claimable rewards) but lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling for invalid wallets.

  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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly state the tool's function and outputs. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, though it could be slightly more structured by separating scope details.

  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 the tool's moderate complexity (retrieving multiple data types for a wallet), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies what data is returned but lacks details on format, pagination, or error cases, leaving gaps for the agent.

  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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'wallet' parameter clearly documented as a 'Solana wallet address'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high 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?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get all farming positions and staking rewards for a wallet' specifies the verb (get) and resource (farming positions and staking rewards). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_lp_positions' by including staking rewards, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'portfolio_analytics' or 'simulate_rebalance'.

  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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_lp_positions' (which might focus only on LP tokens) or 'portfolio_analytics' (which could offer broader analysis), leaving the agent without explicit usage context.

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

• portfolio_analyticsC
  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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely safe and non-destructive, but fails to mention critical aspects like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the return format looks like. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

  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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose and key metrics. There is no wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating different aspects of the analytics.

  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 the tool's complexity (providing comprehensive analytics) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It outlines what metrics are included but does not detail the return format, error conditions, or dependencies. This is adequate for a basic understanding but leaves gaps that could hinder effective use by an agent.

  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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'wallet' parameter clearly documented as a 'Solana wallet address'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it does not explain how the wallet parameter influences the analytics or provide any extra context. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers the parameter.

  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's purpose with specific verbs ('Get comprehensive portfolio analytics') and resources ('portfolio'), listing key metrics like total value, IL metrics, yield performance, and position breakdown. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_farm_positions' or 'get_lp_positions', which might also provide position-related data, leaving some ambiguity in differentiation.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit context, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, such as how it differs from 'get_farm_positions' or 'simulate_rebalance', leaving the agent without clear usage instructions.

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

• simulate_rebalanceC
  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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'simulate' and 'provides recommendations,' which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but does not confirm this or detail other traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what the recommendations entail (e.g., format, scope). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential financial implications.

  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 concise with two sentences that directly state the purpose and outcome. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating simulation from recommendation aspects.

  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?

  Given the complexity of financial simulation and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the recommendations include (e.g., specific adjustments, risk assessment), how results are returned, or any limitations. For a tool with no structured output and behavioral gaps, more context is needed.

  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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (wallet as Solana address, threshold as IL percentage with range). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how the threshold influences the simulation or what the wallet address is used for. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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's purpose: 'Simulate rebalancing LP positions based on impermanent loss threshold' with the specific action 'Provides recommendations for position adjustments.' It distinguishes from siblings like get_farm_positions (which likely retrieves data) and swap_quote (which provides quotes), but could be more explicit about how it differs from portfolio_analytics in terms of simulation vs. analysis.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer simulate_rebalance over portfolio_analytics for analysis or get_lp_positions for data retrieval, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated.

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

• swap_quoteC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the quote includes 'price impact, fees, and minimum output amount with slippage' which gives some output context, but doesn't describe whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if parameters are invalid. For a financial tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes key output details. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

  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?

  For a financial swap quote tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It mentions what the quote includes but doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or important behavioral aspects like whether this is a simulation or requires blockchain interaction. The 100% schema coverage helps, but the overall context remains inadequate.

  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%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'slippage' in the context of the quote output, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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's purpose: 'Get swap quote for token exchange' specifies the verb (get) and resource (swap quote). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on swap quotes rather than positions, analytics, or rebalancing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from hypothetical alternative quote tools.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or compare with other tools. The context signals show siblings like get_farm_positions and simulate_rebalance, but the description offers no comparative guidance.

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

• get_lp_positionsB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get all...') but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description implies it's a query but doesn't explicitly confirm safety or constraints.

  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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose and input, the second specifies the return data. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and efficiently structured without unnecessary details.

  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 the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the purpose and return values but lacks usage context, behavioral details, and output structure, making it minimally viable but incomplete for optimal agent understanding.

  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%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'wallet' as a Solana address. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or validation rules, meeting the baseline for high 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 clearly states the specific action ('Get all liquidity pool positions') and resource ('for a wallet address'), with explicit mention of what data is returned ('pool details, token balances, and LP token amounts'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_farm_positions' by focusing on liquidity pools rather than farms.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'portfolio_analytics' or 'simulate_rebalance'. It mentions what the tool does but offers no context about appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage.

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