Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• agentbodega_get_endpointA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently explains that the tool does not call the paid endpoint and returns specific fields. No contradictions or omissions.

  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 with four sentences: purpose, return content, and a disclaimer. No redundant information, well-structured.

  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 simple input schema and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: when to use, what it returns, and limitations. It does not describe error handling, but that is acceptable for this level of detail.

  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% with descriptions, but the description adds value by clarifying the acceptable formats for the endpoint parameter (key, title, path, URL) and the effect of includeSchemas on the response verbosity.

  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?

  Description explicitly states the tool's purpose: to retrieve the complete contract of an endpoint known from search_catalog before paying. It lists what it returns and distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it is used after search_catalog and does not call the paid endpoint.

  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 when to use the tool: after search_catalog, when you know the endpoint identifier and need the full contract. It implies not to use it for searching or calling. It could benefit from explicitly stating when not to use, but the context is sufficient.

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

• agentbodega_search_catalogA
  4.4/5.0
  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 the key behavioral trait: the tool is read-only and has no side effects ('never executes paid endpoints or creates x402 payments'). This is essential for an agent to use it safely. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error behavior, which would be beneficial for completeness.

  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 filler. The first sentence states the primary use case, and the second explains what the tool does and its safety. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and 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 context: what the tool does, when to use it, and its read-only nature. The sibling tools list helps with differentiation. However, it could mention what to do after receiving results (e.g., use other tools for details or execution), but the core use case is well handled.

  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?

  All four parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond the schema. The description contextualizes the parameters by stating the tool fetches a live directory and returns summaries, but it does not provide additional semantic details for individual parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema already documents parameters well.

  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: 'Use this first when you need to choose an AgentBodega paid data endpoint.' It specifies the action (search/fetch directory), the resource (AgentBodega catalog), and what it returns (summaries with key, path, price, etc.). It differentiates from siblings by noting it never executes endpoints, which is a key distinction from agentbodega_call_snippet.

  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 guidance: 'Use this first when you need to choose an AgentBodega paid data endpoint.' It also states when not to use it: 'It never executes paid endpoints or creates x402 payments,' implying a different tool for execution. This gives clear context for when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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

• agentbodega_call_snippetA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully discloses what the tool returns (curl/JavaScript snippets with JSON body, X-PAYMENT placeholder, x402 notes) and what it does not do (no live challenge, no execution). No contradictions.

  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 concise sentences front-load the purpose and context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

  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 simple single-parameter tool with full schema description and no output schema, the description adequately explains output and limitations. No missing 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?

  The single parameter 'endpoint' is well-described in the input schema (accepts various formats). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, and schema coverage is 100%, so 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 it generates curl and JavaScript snippets for preparing an HTTP request after selecting an endpoint. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_catalog, get_endpoint, and payment_guide by focusing on snippet generation.

  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?

  Explicitly says to use after selecting an endpoint and lists exclusions: does not fetch live 402 challenge, spend funds, or execute the paid call. Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

• agentbodega_payment_guideA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It is fully transparent about being an informational guide, listing exactly what it explains (discovery, settlement, model, sample) and what it does not do, with no destructive or mutative behavior implied.

  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 with front-loaded usage instruction. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

  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?

  As an informational guide with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's scope, content, and limitations for an agent to decide when 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% for the single parameter (includeCurl). The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself is clear, so 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's purpose: to explain AgentBodega x402 payment discovery and settlement before making paid HTTP calls. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like agentbodega_call_snippet which actually make calls, and agentbodega_search_catalog which searches endpoints.

  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?

  Explicitly states when to use ('before making paid HTTP calls') and what it does not do ('does not validate wallets, create discounts, or perform payments'), providing clear guidance on appropriate contexts.

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