Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• hunter_searchA
  3.6/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It does well by mentioning the authentication requirement (HUNTER_KEY), cost implications (extra credits for queries beyond 30 days), and query syntax rules. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the parameters, or error handling.

  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 sized and front-loaded with essential information. It efficiently covers authentication, query syntax, operators, examples, asset types, and time filtering in a single paragraph. Every sentence adds value, though some information about parameters is redundant with the schema.

  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 search tool with 8 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no output schema or annotations, the description provides adequate context about authentication, query syntax, and cost implications. However, it doesn't describe the return format, result structure, or error scenarios, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand the full tool behavior.

  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?

  With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explaining query syntax with examples and mentioning time range filtering implications, but doesn't provide significant additional parameter semantics beyond what's already well-documented in the schema descriptions.

  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 searches the Hunter cyberspace mapping platform with specific query syntax. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning Hunter specifically, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from fofa_search or quake_search in terms of when to use each platform.

  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 mentions the HUNTER_KEY environment variable requirement and provides query syntax examples, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling fofa_search or quake_search tools. It provides some context about time range filtering and credit consumption, but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection.

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

• quake_searchA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does an excellent job disclosing behavioral traits. It specifies authentication requirements (QUAKE_KEY environment variable), pagination behavior (scroll API with pagination_id expiring in 5 minutes), query syntax rules, field naming conventions, and user tier limitations for the 'include' parameter. The only minor gap is lack of explicit rate limit information.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is appropriately front-loaded with core functionality, but becomes somewhat dense with multiple examples, syntax rules, and field naming conventions in a single paragraph. While all information is valuable, the structure could be improved with better organization or bullet points for readability.

  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 complex search tool with 9 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description provides substantial context about authentication, query syntax, pagination behavior, field naming rules, and user tier limitations. The main gap is lack of information about return format or result structure, which would be helpful given no output schema exists.

  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%, providing comprehensive parameter documentation. The description adds some value by emphasizing the importance of the 'include' parameter and providing field naming examples, but doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what's already in the schema. This meets 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 tool searches the 'Quake 360 cyberspace mapping platform using scroll API (supports deep pagination)', which is a specific verb (search) and resource (Quake 360 platform). It distinguishes from sibling tools like fofa_search and hunter_search by explicitly naming the platform and API method.

  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 about when to use this tool (searching Quake 360 platform with scroll API for deep pagination) and mentions the QUAKE_KEY environment variable requirement. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or provide direct alternatives to sibling tools, though the platform specificity implies differentiation.

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

• fofa_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 full burden and does well by disclosing authentication requirements (FOFA_EMAIL and FOFA_KEY environment variables), query syntax rules, and operator behaviors. It doesn't mention rate limits, pagination details, or error handling, but provides substantial operational context.

  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 efficiently structured with zero wasted sentences. It opens with the core purpose, then provides prerequisites, syntax rules, operators, and examples in a logical flow. Every sentence serves a clear informational purpose.

  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 search tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides strong context about authentication, query syntax, and examples. It lacks details about response format, error conditions, and rate limits, but covers the essential operational aspects well given the structured data available.

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds some value by providing query syntax examples and operator explanations that complement the schema, but doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what's already documented in the input schema properties.

  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 ('Search') and resource ('FOFA cyberspace mapping platform'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like hunter_search and quake_search by specifying the FOFA platform. It provides a complete functional overview in the opening sentence.

  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 about when to use this tool (searching the FOFA platform) and mentions environment variable prerequisites, but doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling tools or specify when NOT to use it. The context is sufficient but lacks explicit alternative guidance.

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