Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_recent_transactionsA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description is responsible for behavioral disclosures. It reveals only the sort order ('newest first') but omits default limit, pagination behavior, return format, or error cases, leaving the agent with limited knowledge about how the tool executes.

  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, clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, making it instantly scannable.

  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 and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, but absent an output schema, the description does not explain return values or edge cases. It is minimally adequate but leaves room for interpretation.

  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 significant meaning beyond restating the purpose, so it meets the baseline for parameter understanding without enhancing 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 clearly identifies the action ('List') and the resource ('most recent transactions for a Solana wallet address'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_wallet_balance and get_token_balances. The phrase 'newest first' adds useful specificity.

  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?

  No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned. The description implies usage for fetching transaction history, but does not contrast with balance or price tools, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.

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

• get_wallet_balanceA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a read-only operation ('Get') and specifies the network (mainnet), but it omits details such as return format (e.g., SOL amount vs lamports) and how invalid addresses are handled. This is a significant gap, but the core read-only nature and network context are present, so a 3 is appropriate.

  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, clear sentence with no redundant information. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

  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 with one parameter and no output schema, but the description does not specify the units of the returned balance (SOL vs lamports) or any error behavior. Given the lack of an output schema, this missing detail leaves an agent uncertain about how to interpret the result, making the description minimally sufficient but not complete.

  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?

  The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'address' parameter with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage is used.

  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's function: getting the native SOL balance for a Solana wallet address, explicitly specifying mainnet. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_token_balances (non-native tokens) and get_sol_price (price), making the purpose unambiguous.

  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 for when to use the tool (when you need a wallet's SOL balance on mainnet), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Since the purpose is self-evident and distinct from siblings, this earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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

• get_token_balancesA
  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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by explicitly stating 'non-zero' balances, which filters out zero holdings. However, it does not mention return format, error handling, or validation behavior, leaving some gaps for a read-only list tool.

  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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or extraneous information.

  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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the core function and the notable 'non-zero' filter. Missing details about return structure are minor given the straightforward nature of the operation, though a brief note on output format would enhance completeness.

  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?

  The schema already provides 100% coverage for the 'address' parameter with a clear description ('A Solana wallet address (base58 public key)'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the 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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'SPL token balances' and scope 'held by a Solana wallet address'. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_sol_price (price), get_wallet_balance (likely SOL balance), and get_recent_transactions (transactions).

  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 clearly states the use case: to list non-zero SPL token balances for a given wallet. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the specificity to SPL tokens implies it should not be used for SOL balance or price queries.

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

• get_sol_priceA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the result is 'current' and in USD, implying a real-time fetch. However, it does not mention potential issues like network errors, rate limits, or the exact return format (e.g., number vs. object).

  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 with no filler words. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place, conveying both the purpose and the unit of measurement.

  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?

  The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, so the description explains what it returns (price in USD) sufficiently. It does not specify data types or error conditions, but those are likely unnecessary for a trivial price getter. The context is complete for an agent to use it correctly.

  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, so the input schema is fully covered (vacuously). The description adds no parameter information because none is needed. Per the rubric, 0 parameters gets a baseline score of 4.

  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' and the resource 'current price of SOL in USD'. It is specific and unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_wallet_balance and get_recent_transactions by focusing solely on price.

  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: use this tool when you need the current SOL price in USD. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling tools are so obviously different (balances, transactions) that no exclusion is necessary.

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