Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_ratingsA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that results are sorted best-first and include letter grade and composite score. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only, idempotent, or safe, which is a gap for a browse 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 concise (two sentences and an example), front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds information. There is no wasted text.

  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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return format. It covers the main use case and parameters. However, it lacks mention of pagination or error handling, which would be expected for a list tool with a limit parameter.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value with an example usage showing real parameter values and explains the return format (letter grade + composite score). This goes beyond what the schema provides, earning a 4.

  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 it browses DeFi ratings for one entity type, with optional filters. The verb 'browse' and resource are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_ratings' or 'get_rating', which slightly reduces clarity.

  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 implicitly indicates when to use (to browse ratings by entity type with optional filters) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or when to prefer alternatives. Sibling tools exist but are not mentioned for comparison.

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

• search_ratingsA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it searches across all entity types, returns matching entities with grade and score, and gives an example. No hidden behaviors are expected, but it lacks details on pagination or rate limits.

  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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and an example. Every sentence adds value and there is no wasted text.

  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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete: it explains what it does, how to use it, and what it returns. No gaps in information.

  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% and both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds an example and clarifies narrowing, but does not provide significant new meaning beyond the schema.

  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 it searches Verdict's DeFi ratings by name or keyword across all 7 entity types. It also mentions narrowing by entity_type and the return format. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_rating or list_ratings.

  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?

  It provides some guidance on when to use (by keyword, optionally narrow by entity_type) but does not mention alternatives or when not to use. Sibling tools exist but are not referenced.

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

• get_ratingA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Describes return values (letter grade, composite score, metadata) and input format. No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Lacks disclosure of rate limits, auth needs, or side effects, but adequate for a simple read 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?

  Two efficient sentences: first states purpose and output, second shows example. No wasted words, front-loaded key 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?

  No output schema, but description explains return values. Input schema well-documented. Lacks usage guidance against siblings, but otherwise complete for a simple get tool.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds value by specifying identifier can be slug or UUID and providing example usage, which aids correct invocation.

  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?

  Clearly states verb 'Get', resource 'full free-tier Verdict rating', and scope 'one DeFi entity'. Distinguishes from sibling tools (search_ratings, list_ratings) by implying single entity lookup.

  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 or when-not-to-use guidance. Example provided but does not compare with siblings. Usage is implied by the tool's function.

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