Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• clawswap_statusA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read operation (checking status) and requires a 'requestId' from 'clawswap_bridge', which adds useful context. However, it doesn't describe behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or what the status response might include (e.g., pending, completed, failed).

  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 key information: the tool's purpose and parameter context. There is no wasted text, and every word earns its place by clarifying usage and dependencies.

  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?

  Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the purpose and parameter semantics well, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error cases or response format. For a status-checking tool, this leaves some uncertainty for the agent.

  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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that 'requestId' comes from 'clawswap_bridge', providing semantic context beyond the schema's technical description. This helps the agent understand the parameter's origin and purpose, elevating the score.

  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: 'Check the status of a previously initiated bridge' with the specific resource being 'a previously initiated bridge' and the verb 'Check the status'. It distinguishes from its sibling 'clawswap_bridge' by specifying it's for checking status rather than initiating. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'clawswap_quote', which might be for getting quotes rather than checking status.

  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 this tool: after initiating a bridge with 'clawswap_bridge' and needing to check its status using the 'requestId'. It implies an alternative by referencing 'clawswap_bridge' for initiation, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare with 'clawswap_quote'.

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

• clawswap_bridgeA
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It usefully describes the tool's automated workflow (handles quoting, payment, signing, and submission) and lists supported tokens, which goes beyond basic functionality. However, it lacks critical behavioral details like whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions or authentication are needed, rate limits, or what happens on failure.

  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 perfectly concise and well-structured with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the core functionality and automation, while the second provides specific usage context with supported tokens. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy.

  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?

  For a complex 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete about what the tool does and its scope. However, it lacks important contextual information about the operation's nature (read vs. write), authentication requirements, error handling, and what the tool returns, which are significant gaps for a tool that presumably performs financial transactions.

  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 all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by mentioning specific token symbols (USDC, USDT, SOL, ETH, WETH) which aligns with the schema, and implies the tool handles cross-chain operations, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

  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 purpose with specific verbs (send, transfer, swap, bridge) and resources (tokens between Solana and Base chains). It explicitly distinguishes this comprehensive tool from its sibling 'clawswap_quote' by mentioning it handles quoting, payment, signing, and submission automatically, while 'clawswap_quote' likely only provides quotes.

  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 this tool (to move specific tokens between Solana and Base chains) and implies an alternative by mentioning 'clawswap_quote' handles quoting, suggesting that tool might be for quote-only operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or fully differentiate from 'clawswap_status'.

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

• clawswap_quoteA
  4.4/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It does well by stating the tool is 'Free, no payment required' and that it 'Shows estimated output amount, fees, and time', which are important behavioral traits. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions.

  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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each earn their place: states the purpose, lists what it shows, and provides usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no 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?

  For a quote tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining what information will be returned ('estimated output amount, fees, and time') and the free nature of the call. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the return format.

  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 description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% description coverage. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides comprehensive parameter documentation.

  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 purpose with specific verbs ('Get a price quote') and resources ('cross-chain transfer between Solana and Base'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by mentioning 'Use before bridging to preview costs' which implies clawswap_bridge is the actual execution tool.

  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?

  The description provides explicit usage guidance with 'Use before bridging to preview costs', clearly indicating when to use this tool versus the clawswap_bridge sibling tool. It also mentions it's 'Free, no payment required' which helps set expectations.

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