Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• nexus_trackerB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the tool returns a 'weekly synthesis', but omits details on authentication, rate limits, data freshness, or potential errors. Minimal transparency beyond the basic function.

  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 concise, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and the available trackers. No unnecessary words or repetition.

  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?

  Given the tool's simplicity with a single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and the options. However, it could mention the output format or that it returns text, but overall it is sufficient for its purpose.

  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 input schema already describes the parameter 'name' with an enum and a brief description. The tool description adds significant value by explaining what each tracker covers (e.g., 'china-watch (PRC-linked activity)'), which exceeds the schema's minimal description and aids correct selection.

  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 retrieves the latest weekly synthesis from one of four named Nexus trackers, specifying the verb 'get' and the resource 'weekly synthesis'. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like nexus_factcheck, nexus_record_lookup, or nexus_search, though their names suggest different functions.

  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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither states prerequisites nor gives examples of appropriate use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage 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.

• nexus_searchA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions the free tier limitation (last 30 days) and sorting (newest first), which adds transparency, but does not disclose rate limits, whether results are paginated, or if authentication is needed. Adequate but not thorough.

  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, tight sentence that conveys purpose, scope, ordering, free tier limitation, and source. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

  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?

  Given that the tool is a simple search with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: search domain, default ordering, free tier restriction, and return type. It could mention pagination or how to access older data, but it is largely complete for 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., does not explain how 'query' is processed or what 'limit' affects). Baseline score of 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 clearly states 'Full-text search across The Nexus article corpus (news + government feeds), newest first.' It specifies the resource (news + government feeds) and behavior (search, newest first), and is distinct from sibling tools like nexus_factcheck and nexus_tracker.

  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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks statements like 'use this for searching articles; use nexus_factcheck for fact-checking' or any exclusion criteria.

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

• nexus_record_lookupA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results include document links and a connection teaser, and that the source is U.S. public records. It does not detail pagination or error handling, but for a read-only lookup this is adequate.

  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 concise, using three sentences to convey purpose, scope, and usage guidance. No wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

  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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the sources, output contents (documents, teaser), and usage hint. It lacks details on return format or pagination, but is sufficient for the complexity level.

  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 a clear parameter description. The tool description reinforces that the entity is a person or organization but adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema. 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 clearly states the tool looks up a U.S. public-record footprint for a person or organization, listing specific sources (courts, SEC/EDGAR, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like nexus_search (general search) by focusing on public records.

  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 explicitly says 'Use this to answer "what's on the record for X?"', providing a clear use case. It does not mention when not to use or compare to siblings, but the usage context is well-defined.

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

• nexus_factcheckA
  4.3/5.0
  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. It discloses the return format (verdict, rationale, confidence, citations) and the caching/rate-limiting behavior. This gives the agent sufficient understanding of the tool's execution characteristics.

  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 earning its place: the first defines purpose and output, the second adds constraints, the third states source. No redundant words.

  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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and behavioral nuances (caching, rate limits). It is complete for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke it.

  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% (one parameter 'claim' is described as 'The claim to check, in plain language'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

  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 specifies a precise verb ('check'), a concrete resource ('The Nexus's news corpus and public records'), and the unique output (verdict types). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like nexus_search or nexus_record_lookup.

  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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('check a factual claim') and hints at constraints (instant for cached, rate-limited for novel). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives for non-fact-check queries.

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