Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• x402_paid_pathsA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so description only needs to add context. It does so by specifying the content of the return (endpoints, service catalog, AgentCard, handoff URLs), which goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations.

  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 sentence that is directly to the point, listing all the components returned. No filler or redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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?

  This is a simple no-parameter read-only tool. The description covers the key return items, which is sufficient given the lack of output schema. It does not explain return format, but the listed items give a clear picture of what to expect.

  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, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter behavior.

  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 verb 'Return' and identifies the resource as 'Tate Programs paid x402 API endpoints, service catalog, AgentCard, and fixed-scope review handoff URLs.' It is specific about what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.

  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?

  There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools 'triage_x402_surface' or 'watch_402_index.' The description simply states what it returns without contextualizing its appropriate usage or exclusions.

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

• watch_402_indexA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value beyond these by explicitly stating "does not send payment headers or paid calls," which clarifies financial side effects not covered by the hints alone. It also describes the kind of insights the lookup provides (spot down services, etc.), but does not elaborate on pagination or response format, keeping it just below a perfect score.

  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 three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: what the tool does, when to use it, and a safety clarification. It is fully front-loaded with the action verb and resource. No redundant or filler 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?

  There is no output schema, but the description explains the practical utility (spot down services, invalid payment requirements, unverified domains). It covers the tool's purpose, use cases, and safety. Missing details like pagination or return counts are not explicitly stated, but the simplicity of the tool and the rich schema/annotations make this adequate with only minor gaps.

  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 mentions provider, domain, endpoint URL, and search term, but this effectively mirrors the q parameter's schema description ('402 Index search term, provider name, domain, service URL, or endpoint URL'). No additional parameter semantics are added beyond the schema.

  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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Look up public 402 Index service records by provider, domain, endpoint URL, or search term." This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly stating it handles public metadata and does not send payment headers or paid calls, contrasting with x402_paid_paths.

  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?

  Provides explicit usage context: "Use this before listing, outreach, launch review, or re-check work" and explains what it can reveal (down services, invalid payment requirements, unverified domains). It also includes an exclusion: "This is public metadata only and does not send payment headers or paid calls," guiding when not to use it.

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

• triage_x402_surfaceA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive. The description adds explicit guarantees that no X-PAYMENT, wallet signatures, API keys, private tokens, or paid calls are sent, plus lists return content. No contradiction.

  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: first states the core action, second lists outputs and exclusions. No redundant text, well front-loaded.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the read-only, open-world nature and absence of output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, what it returns, and what it deliberately avoids sending. No critical gaps.

  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 covers 100% of parameters with meaningful descriptions. The description adds no extra parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

  The description uses a specific verb phrase ('Run a no-payment external pass') and lists concrete resource types (x402, MPP, Pay.sh, OpenAPI, manifest, HTTP 402 endpoint). It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'no-payment' and 'triage' versus watching or paid paths.

  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 clear context for use: a single public endpoint, no payment, external triage pass. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or exclude cases, but the scope is well defined.

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