Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_paymentC
  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 states the tool retrieves payment status, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the response format might be. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

  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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and easy to parse, though it could be slightly more informative by including usage context without sacrificing brevity.

  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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., status details, error handling) or behavioral aspects like authentication needs. For a tool with no structured data beyond the input schema, more context is needed to be fully helpful to 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 'paymentId' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

  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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('status of a PayBot payment'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_payments' or 'pay', which would require mentioning this is for retrieving a single payment's status rather than listing multiple payments or initiating a payment.

  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 sibling tools like 'list_payments' for multiple payments or 'pay' for initiating payments, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a payment ID. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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

• list_paymentsC
  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. 'List recent payments' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the schema parameters, or what 'recent' means (e.g., time window). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with two parameters and no output schema.

  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 phrase with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple listing tool.

  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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'recent' entails, the format of returned payments, or how pagination works in practice. For a listing tool with no structured behavioral hints, 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?

  The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for 'limit' and 'offset'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'recent' filtering, which isn't reflected in the parameters. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 'List recent payments' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('payments'), and the qualifier 'recent' adds useful scope. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_payment' (which likely retrieves a single payment) or 'pay' (which likely initiates a payment), so it falls short of a perfect score.

  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 'get_payment' or 'pay'. It lacks any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

• payC
  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 states the action is to 'Submit a USDC payment', implying a write operation, but fails to mention critical details such as required permissions, transaction confirmation, error handling, or rate limits, leaving 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without any unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to grasp immediately.

  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 a payment submission tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, security requirements, and how it interacts with sibling tools, making it incomplete for safe and effective use.

  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, providing clear documentation for all parameters (to, amount, memo, idempotencyKey). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already covers, so it meets the baseline for adequate but not enhanced parameter understanding.

  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 action ('Submit a USDC payment') and specifies the mechanism ('through PayBot'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_payment' or 'list_payments', which prevents a perfect score.

  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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_payment' or 'list_payments'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases, offering minimal usage direction.

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

• healthA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's core behavior (reachability check) but doesn't specify what 'reachable' means (e.g., network connectivity, service status), expected response format, timeout behavior, or authentication requirements. For a zero-parameter tool, this is adequate but minimal.

  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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and appropriately sized for a simple health check tool.

  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?

  For a zero-parameter health check tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks details about what constitutes 'reachable', expected response format, or error conditions. Given the tool's simplicity, it's minimally complete but could benefit from slightly more behavioral context.

  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 zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameter details, which is correct for a parameterless tool.

  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 as checking server reachability with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('PayBot server'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_payment, list_payments, and pay by focusing on health monitoring rather than payment operations. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with potential alternative health-check tools.

  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 context - when you need to verify server availability before attempting payment operations. It doesn't provide explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives, but the context is reasonably clear given the sibling tools are all payment-related.

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