Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• agledger_discoverA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already establish the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context by disclosing the response contents (health, identity, scopes, quickstart) and its orientation purpose. This is sufficient for a 0-parameter discovery tool, though it omits response format details.

  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 two sentences, front-loaded with the return statement and followed by actionable guidance. Every word contributes; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

  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?

  For a 0-parameter tool with strong annotations, the description fully covers purpose, output contents, and usage sequencing. Even without an output schema, it clearly communicates what the caller can expect and why this tool should be used first.

  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 no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description correctly does not attempt to document nonexistent parameters, meeting the baseline for this dimension.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly enumerates the resources (API health, identity, scopes, quickstart workflow). It also states 'Call this first,' positioning it as an entry point, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools.

  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?

  'Call this first' provides explicit contextual guidance for when to invoke the tool, and 'the response tells you what to do next' implies a sequencing role. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough for this simple discovery endpoint.

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

• agledger_apiA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description adds behavioral traits not present in annotations, such as the API's nextSteps mechanism, the suggestion field in errors, and method-specific parameter mapping. These complement the annotations (destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true) without contradiction, enriching the agent's understanding of the tool's runtime behavior.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is lengthier than average but well-structured: a one-line purpose, then workflow steps, error guidance, and parameter mapping. Every sentence carries functional weight, though a slight trim of the step-by-step workflow could improve scannability.

  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?

  For a generic API caller with no output schema and a complex open-world API, the description is remarkably complete. It tells the agent how to get schemas, required fields, create records, submit completions, recover from errors, and access the full catalog – covering both discovery and execution paths.

  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?

  Although the schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters, the description adds practical semantics: path examples, the required /v1/ prefix, a sample JSON parameter string, and the rule that GET/DELETE params become query parameters while POST/PUT/PATCH become the body. This goes beyond the schema's nominal definitions.

  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 'Make any AGLedger API call' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself as the generic API tool, with an explicit workflow for schemas and records, setting it apart from the sibling discover and verify tools.

  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 a numbered workflow and instructs to follow nextSteps on every response, giving clear context on how to proceed. It also explains error handling and how to access the full API catalog, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over agledger_discover or agledger_verify, missing an exclusion clause.

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

• agledger_verifyA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds significant context: 'No network calls', 'anything else fails closed', 'On failure, brokenAt pinpoints...', and the security recommendation about out-of-band keys. No contradiction.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is long but information-dense; every sentence serves a purpose. It's front-loaded with the primary action and then systematically covers algorithms, security notes, failure handling, and tool compatibility. Slightly dense as a single paragraph but warranted.

  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?

  With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of explaining outcomes. It describes failure output (brokenAt plus canonical codes) and key provenance, but does not explicitly describe a successful result's shape (e.g., whether it returns a boolean or summary), leaving a small gap.

  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 detailed parameter descriptions, but the tool description adds extra context beyond the schema: e.g., it explains where to fetch publicKeys (GET /v1/verification-keys) and that result.keyProvenance distinguishes key sources, which isn't in the schema.

  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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Verify an AGLedger record audit export offline (format 2.0, COSE_Sign1).' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by directing the user to agledger_api for obtaining the export and to attestation for raw stream.

  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?

  It explicitly states when to use this tool ('For an independent audit, pass publicKeys obtained out of band') and how to obtain the input ('Obtain the export via agledger_api...'), and contrasts with alternatives (raw COSE_Sign1 stream via attestation).

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