Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• rateA
  4/5.0
  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. It emphasizes the tool is 'FREE' and 'costs nothing', but lacks details on idempotency, potential side effects, or authentication needs. For a simple feedback tool, it is minimally adequate but could be more explicit about safety.

  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 purpose and usage context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or 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?

  The tool has no output schema, but given its simple nature as a feedback submission, the description sufficiently covers input and usage. It does not explain the return value, but this is not critical. Overall complete for its simplicity.

  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 three parameters. The description adds minor context by clarifying score range (1-10) and purposes of pros and cons, but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond 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?

  Description clearly states it is a feedback tool for rating signals after trading or evaluating. It specifies that users leave a score 1-10 plus pros and cons, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'scan_bottoms' and 'subscribe' which are unrelated.

  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?

  Description explicitly says 'after you have traded on (or evaluated) our signals', providing clear context for when to use. It also mentions 'costs nothing, no payment header needed', which informs about prerequisites. However, it does not mention when not to use or provide alternatives, but given no sibling feedback tools exist, this is acceptable.

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

• scan_bottomsA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses payment model, cost, trial, retry header, and no-account requirement. No annotations exist, so description carries burden. Does not mention destructive effects (presumably read-only).

  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?

  Front-loaded with purpose, structured with key details. Slightly verbose on payment, but acceptable for clarity.

  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 returns are ranked list. Covers cold start and payment. Adequate for the tool's complexity.

  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%, and description adds context: limit default/max, symbols optional with default set. Adds value beyond 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 clearly states it scans the market for coins at a bottom, ranked most-bottom first. It distinguishes from siblings like scan_tops by specific mention of 'bottom' vs 'tops'.

  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 guidance on payment, cold start (no symbol needed), and mentions the free pitch tool. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but context differentiates from siblings adequately.

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

• subscribeA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that checking is free, activation triggers a payment challenge, and returns a token for 30-day unlimited calls. It also mentions per-call costs and trial period. However, it omits behavior for already-subscribed users and does not fully describe the status check response.

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

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is long and mixes instructions with pricing details. It front-loads the two main actions but then becomes dense with payment flow, signing, and token usage. A more structured format (e.g., bullet points) would improve clarity without losing information.

  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?

  No output schema is provided, so the description must cover return values. It mentions returning an X-SUB-KEY token for activation but does not describe the response for status checks. Error scenarios (e.g., invalid agentId, already subscribed) are not covered. Adequate but incomplete.

  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 basic descriptions. The tool description adds meaningful context: 'agentId' links the subscription, 'activate' requests the payment challenge. This enriches beyond the schema, though the schema already covers the parameter names and types.

  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 two distinct actions: checking subscription status (free) and activating the monthly plan via the 'activate' parameter. It explicitly mentions linking an agentId and contrasts with per-call pricing, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

  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 when-to-use guidance: check status without 'activate', or activate the plan with 'activate:true'. It also mentions the alternative of per-call pricing until subscribed and details the activation flow (402 challenge, signing, retry). This fully guides the agent on selecting the correct mode.

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

• scan_topsA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses payment ($0.01 per call via x402), 6-day trial, and the need to retry with a header. It also notes the tool ranks the whole universe by default. However, it does not explicitly state whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, though it is implied to be a scan.

  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 somewhat long but front-loaded with purpose and payment. Every sentence adds value: purpose, payment model, cold-start hint, and contrast with pitch tool. Could be slightly more concise, but structure is logical and information-dense.

  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 tool's complexity (payment, trial, header) and lack of output schema, the description covers critical contextual details: pricing, authentication method, default behavior, and sibling differentiation. It does not describe the return format, but the tool's purpose is clear enough for the AI to infer it returns a list of coins with ranking.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating default limit (5), maximum (50), and that symbols defaults to a top-coins set. This provides context beyond the schema and helps the AI understand parameter behavior.

  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 scans the market for coins at a top (most overbought/sell) and ranks them. It specifically distinguishes from sibling tools like scan_bottoms by its focus on tops, and uses precise verb+resource+scope: 'Scan the market and return coins currently at a top.'

  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: no account/signup needed, how to handle the 402 challenge with a PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header, and a best cold start hint for symbol selection. It also contrasts with the free pitch tool for counting. This clearly helps the AI decide when to use this tool over alternatives.

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