Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_accountsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool lists every accessible account and returns balances, but it does not mention potential volume, pagination, or authentication requirements. Adequate but not rich.

  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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The extra clarification about being unrestricted is valuable, and 'Takes no arguments' is necessary. No wasted 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?

  Given no output schema, the description explains what is returned (current and available balance) and the scope (every account). It omits details like account identifiers or ordering, but for a simple listing tool this is largely sufficient.

  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 takes zero parameters, and the description explicitly states 'Takes no arguments.' This adds a small but useful clarification beyond the empty schema, which already implies no parameters. Baseline for no-param tools is 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?

  Clearly states it lists all bank accounts accessible via Akahu with current and available balances. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bank_get_balance or bank_get_transactions, which target specific balance or transaction details.

  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 notes the tool is 'Unrestricted - not limited to a specific allowlist', which implies it is the broad listing tool, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. Guidance is implied rather than stated.

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

• bank_get_balanceA
  4.2/5.0
  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 disclosing behavior. It accurately implies a read-only operation (getting balance) and specifies it returns both current and available balance. However, it does not mention potential side effects of the refresh parameter or any rate limits, though the refresh behavior is covered in the schema.

  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 sentences with no unnecessary words. The core function is front-loaded, and the prerequisite instruction is concise. This is an example of efficient specification.

  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 balance lookup tool with two well-documented parameters, the description is sufficient. It names the exact resource and necessary input. The lack of output schema is not problematic for such a straightforward operation, and the relationship to list_accounts is clarified.

  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 schema already provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by advising how to obtain the account ID ('Use list_accounts to find the ID'), which directly helps the agent understand the relationship between parameters and sibling tools, exceeding the schema's generic description.

  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 specific resource 'current and available balance' for one bank account, identified by Akahu account ID. It distinguishes itself from siblings like bank_get_transactions (which would fetch transactions) and list_accounts (which lists accounts), making it 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?

  It explicitly tells the user to use list_accounts to find the account ID, which is a clear prerequisite. It does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools for similar purposes, but it provides a direct contextual hint for the primary workflow.

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

• bank_get_transactionsA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only settled/posted transactions are returned, explains the exclusive/inclusive date boundaries, and notes the historical access window when both dates are omitted. This is substantial behavioral context beyond a naive 'get transactions' statement, though it doesn't cover pagination or response structure.

  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?

  Three sentences: first identifies the tool's core function, second clarifies date format, third explains boundary semantics and omission behavior. Every sentence adds value, no fluff, and the most critical 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?

  Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential operational details: settled transactions, date range rules, and fallback when dates are omitted. It doesn't describe the return shape (e.g., transaction object fields), but the core use cases are sufficiently addressed for a simple fetch 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 the description adds meaning by clarifying that 'start' is exclusive, 'end' is inclusive, and omitting both returns all accessible transactions. This goes beyond the schema's generic ISO 8601 descriptions, directly aiding parameter usage.

  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 gets settled transactions for one bank account by Akahu account ID, with optional date range. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from siblings like bank_get_balance (balance) and list_accounts (account listing).

  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?

  Provides clear context on when to use: fetching settled transactions for a specific account, with date range semantics explicitly defined (exclusive start, inclusive end). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling differentiation is implied by the tool's purpose, so a small gap remains.

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