Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• fetchWalletActivityC
  2.7/5.0
  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 mentions 'fetches' which implies a read operation, but doesn't specify critical details like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or the format of the returned activity history. This leaves 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.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be slightly more structured if it included brief parameter hints.

  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 fetching transaction history, lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'activity history' includes, how results are formatted, or any behavioral constraints, making it incomplete for effective agent use.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only mentions 'wallet address' for the 'address' parameter, ignoring the 'limit' parameter entirely. This fails to add meaningful semantics beyond the basic schema, leaving key usage details unclear.

  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 ('fetches') and resource ('transaction activity history for a Solana wallet address'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyzeWallet' or 'getTransactionDetails', which might offer overlapping functionality.

  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 the sibling tools 'analyzeWallet' or 'getTransactionDetails'. It lacks context about alternatives, prerequisites, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred, 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.

• analyzeWalletC
  2.8/5.0
  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 mentions analyzing activity and creating a profile with recommendations, but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what data it accesses (e.g., on-chain vs. off-chain), rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and constraints.

  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 sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('analyzes a Solana wallet's DeFi activity') and adds secondary details ('creates a profile with recommendations') without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, 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.

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given the tool's complexity (involving DeFi activity analysis and profile creation), no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the analysis entails, the format of the profile or recommendations, error cases, or dependencies, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has 1 parameter ('address') with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic details. The description adds minimal value by implying the parameter is a Solana wallet address, but doesn't clarify format (e.g., base58), validation, or examples. This is inadequate compensation for the low schema coverage, especially for a tool with a single critical parameter.

  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 ('analyzes') and resource ('Solana wallet's DeFi activity'), and it mentions creating a profile with recommendations. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'fetchWalletActivity' or 'getTransactionDetails', which might handle similar wallet-related data but with different scopes or outputs.

  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 'fetchWalletActivity' or 'getTransactionDetails'. It implies usage for analyzing DeFi activity and creating profiles, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer context without clear direction.

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

• getTransactionDetailsC
  2.9/5.0
  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. While it indicates this is a read operation ('Gets'), it doesn't describe what 'detailed information' includes, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what format the response takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

  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 sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the essential information (action + resource + identifier).

  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 that there are no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (0%), the description is insufficiently complete. For a tool that presumably returns complex transaction data, the description should provide more context about what information is returned, error handling, or usage constraints. The current description leaves too many questions unanswered for effective tool invocation.

  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 0%, meaning the single parameter (signature) has no documentation in the schema. The description adds some semantic context by specifying it's a 'Solana transaction signature,' which helps the agent understand what type of identifier is expected. However, it doesn't provide format examples, length constraints, or validation rules that would be needed for proper usage.

  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 ('Gets detailed information') and resource ('about a specific Solana transaction by signature'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling tools (analyzeWallet, fetchWalletActivity), which likely operate on different resources or provide different types of information.

  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 when this tool is appropriate, when other tools should be used instead, or what distinguishes it from the sibling tools (analyzeWallet, fetchWalletActivity). The agent must infer usage context solely from the tool name and description.

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