Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• piqrypt_search_eventsA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided; description states it returns signed events with chain metadata, implying read-only. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens with empty results.

  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 concise sentences with no filler. The action verb is front-loaded, and every sentence adds useful context.

  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?

  No output schema; description gives a brief idea of return values (signed events with chain metadata) but omits details like event structure or metadata fields. The mention of session without a corresponding parameter reduces completeness.

  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 description adds minimal value beyond repeating filter options. It mentions session but the schema lacks a session parameter, creating slight ambiguity.

  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?

  Clearly states verb (search), resource (cryptographic event history), and scope (by type, time range, or session). Distinguishes from siblings like piqrypt_stamp_event (create) and piqrypt_export_audit (export).

  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 a clear use case ('reconstruct what an agent did during a specific period'), but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among siblings.

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

• piqrypt_verify_chainA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description adequately describes what the tool detects (tampering evidence). However, it lacks details on output/return behavior (e.g., error vs result) and side effects, which would improve transparency.

  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, no wasted words, front-loaded with the main action and key details.

  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 full schema coverage, the description covers purpose and usage. It lacks specification of return value (e.g., boolean, report), but overall is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

  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 description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's 'Array of PiQrypt events to verify'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already carries the parameter semantics.

  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 purpose: verifying integrity of an agent's decision history. It lists specific detection capabilities (modified events, missing events, etc.) and distinguishes itself from siblings by its verification role.

  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 includes explicit usage guidance: 'Call before trusting any historical agent output.' While it doesn't explicitly exclude scenarios or name alternatives, the clear context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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

• piqrypt_stamp_eventA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: tamper-proof record creation, Ed25519 signing, and hash chain linking. It lacks details on side effects, idempotency, or error handling, but covers essential traits.

  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 at two sentences, front-loading the purpose and including key details. It is efficient but could be slightly more structured by grouping regulations separately.

  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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral details adequately. The lack of return value description is a minor shortfall, but overall it is fairly 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 input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so a 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 clearly states the tool creates a cryptographic record, specifying the signing algorithm (Ed25519) and chaining mechanism (AISS v2.0), which distinguishes it from sibling tools for export, search, and verification.

  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 advises 'Call this after every significant agent action' and lists regulatory requirements, providing strong contextual cues. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases where the tool should not be called.

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

• piqrypt_export_auditA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Discloses that export is self-contained and verifiable, and mentions Pro license requirement. Does not detail side effects or reading behavior; with no annotations, this 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?

  Two sentences, each adding essential information: purpose and certification detail. No unnecessary 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?

  Lacks output schema but describes the result as a portable JSON archive. Missing details on error conditions or what the audit trail contains, but adequate for a simple export.

  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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value for the certified parameter (legal admissibility) and clarifies the export scope (complete trail).

  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 exports a complete agent audit trail to JSON, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like piqrypt_search_events.

  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 context on when to use certified=true and notes the export is self-contained. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but siblings are distinct actions.

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