Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_user_itemsB
  3.2/5.0
  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 doesn't mention pagination behavior, total result counts, whether only active listings are returned, ordering of results by default, potential rate limits, or whether this requires the seller to be public/authenticated. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, 'currently for sale' hints at status filtering but leaves much undisclosed.

  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?

  A single, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose without filler. It could arguably add a brief usage note, but the current length is appropriate and front-loaded.

  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 read-only listing tool with full schema coverage, the description is functional. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it would benefit from noting pagination/aggregate behavior and the default ordering (newest_first). It's adequate but leaves behavioral details undocumented.

  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%, with each of the 4 parameters having a description. The description adds context that the items are 'currently for sale', which implies a listing-status filter, but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full 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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('items currently for sale') and identifies the scope ('by a specific Vinted user/seller'). It distinguishes from siblings like search_items (global search) and get_item_details (single item lookup), though it doesn't explicitly name them.

  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 clarifies this is for a specific seller's current listings, which implicitly contrasts with the global search_items tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternative tools for related tasks like browsing a user's sold/archived items or getting all items across sellers.

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

• get_item_detailsB
  3.4/5.0
  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 behavioral disclosure burden. It doesn't state whether this is a read operation, what happens if an item is unavailable or deleted, whether authentication is required, or any rate-limit considerations. For a GET-style detail tool it's a modest gap, but with zero annotation coverage the description should provide more.

  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?

  A single, compact sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose and lists the key content areas. No redundancy or filler. Could be slightly more specific but is appropriately concise for the scope of the 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?

  The tool is simple (one param, no output schema, no nested objects), and the description covers what the tool retrieves. However, without annotations or behavioral details, the completeness relies on the tool being straightforward. It's adequate for the low complexity but doesn't add the depth that would push it higher.

  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 parameter is already documented with type, exclusiveness constraint, and provenance ('from search results'). The description itself doesn't add information about item_id, but the schema fully covers it. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting and the description needs no compensation.

  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 verb ('Get detailed information about') with a specific resource ('a specific Vinted item') and names concrete content areas (description, photos, seller info, condition). This is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like search_items (listing/search) and get_user_profile (user-focused).

  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 a single-item lookup context but doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives. It's clear this is for retrieving full details on an already-known item (the item_id param says 'from search results'), but no explicit exclusions or alternative guidance is given. Reasonable but implied usage context.

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

• get_user_profileB
  3.4/5.0
  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 states what data is returned (ratings, reviews, item count, activity) but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the user must exist, what happens on error for invalid IDs, or any pagination/truncation behavior for reviews.

  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?

  Efficient single sentence that packs useful specifics about return content. No wasted words. Could arguably be slightly richer given the behavioral gaps, but as written it is well-structured and front-loaded.

  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?

  The tool is simple (1 param, no output schema, no nested objects), so the baseline need is modest. The description communicates the return contents adequately. However, without annotations, behavioral details like error handling for nonexistent users or auth requirements are absent, leaving some gaps for a data-fetch 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 coverage is 100% and the user_id parameter already has a clear description ('Vinted user ID from search results or item details'). The description adds that this yields profile data but does not add meaning beyond what the schema's parameter description provides. 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?

  Clear verb+resource ('Get a Vinted user's profile') with specific detail on content (ratings, reviews, number of items, activity). Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_user_items which fetches user's item listings, and get_item_details which targets individual items.

  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 context (fetching a user profile) but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, or when not to use it. The sibling get_user_items is related but not referenced as an alternative. No explicit exclusion criteria.

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

• search_itemsB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does note the tool 'Returns a list of items' which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose max page depth, rate limits, result count caps, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema already states. Adequate but not rich.

  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 states purpose and return content in under 25 words with zero wasted text. It's front-loaded with the action verb and resource. Could marginally add sibling differentiation but is otherwise concise.

  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?

  With 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the high-level purpose but misses any guidance on how the filters interact or what the default behavior is. Given good schema coverage and no nested objects, a full 'list' tool with pagination is moderately complex; the description is acceptable but would benefit from noting that filters combine additively or similar.

  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%, hitting the >80% baseline for a score of 3. All 11 parameters already have individual descriptions in the schema, so the tool description adds little param-level value. However, the status_ids parameter uses inline-code style for the enum mapping which is already embedded in the schema, so no compensatory info is needed.

  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+resource ('Search for items on the Vinted marketplace') and clearly distinguishes its purpose from siblings like get_item_details, get_user_profile, and search_brands. It also summarizes the return set (prices, brands, sizes, seller info), making the tool's scope immediately obvious.

  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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There's no mention of alternatives (e.g., search_brands for brand lookups, get_item_details for single-item info) or exclusions. Placement of intended use is absent.

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

• search_brandsA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It states the tool is a read-only lookup that returns IDs, which strongly implies a non-destructive search operation. It also discloses the downstream consumption pattern (feeding into search_items). While it doesn't mention match behavior (partial vs exact, result count/format), the read-only nature is reasonably implied and the integration context is disclosed.

  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, zero waste. It states the purpose and the downstream usage in one compact paragraph. Every word 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 single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the purpose, the parameter usage, and how the result is consumed. It could optionally note whether results are paginated or whether partial matches are supported, but for a simple brand lookup the current level of detail is adequate.

  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 fully documents the single 'query' parameter, including a placeholder example ('Nike', 'Zara'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema documents, so the baseline 3 applies.

  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+resource ('Search for Vinted brand IDs by name') and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings: it returns brand IDs, which are meant to be used with the 'brand_ids' filter in search_items. This clearly positions it as a lookup/support tool distinct from the item/user tools among its siblings.

  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 the tool (searching brand IDs by name) and importantly tells the agent how the output is consumed ('Use the returned IDs with the brand_ids filter in search_items'). This provides clear guidance on the integration point with sibling tools, effectively serving as an explicit usage instruction.

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