Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• scrapeC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'conteúdo inteligente' which hints at some processing beyond raw HTML, but doesn't specify what 'inteligente' means (e.g., text extraction, summarization, structured data). It lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. For a web scraping tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

  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 in Portuguese that directly states the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized for a tool with clear parameters in the schema, with zero wasted words. The structure is front-loaded with the core functionality.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity of web scraping (network operations, potential failures, diverse outputs) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'conteúdo inteligente' returns, how errors are handled, or any behavioral constraints. For a 4-parameter tool with no structured safety or output information, more descriptive context is needed.

  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 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It implies URL-based extraction but doesn't clarify parameter interactions or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without additional param details in the description.

  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 'Extrai conteúdo inteligente de uma URL específica' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('extrai') and resource ('conteúdo inteligente de uma URL específica'). It distinguishes from 'fetchFullContent' by implying intelligent extraction rather than full content retrieval, from 'rag' by focusing on web scraping rather than retrieval-augmented generation, and from 'screenshot' by extracting content rather than capturing images. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fetchFullContent', 'rag', or 'screenshot'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone without explicit direction.

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

• screenshotC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 states the action ('captura') but doesn't mention critical traits such as whether it requires network access, potential rate limits, error handling, or the format of the output (e.g., image data). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

  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 in Portuguese that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity (a web screenshot tool with 4 parameters) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects like output format (e.g., image type), error conditions, or dependencies, leaving the agent with insufficient information for reliable use.

  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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (e.g., 'URL da página para capturar'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining interactions between parameters. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

  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 'Captura screenshot de uma página web' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('captura') and resource ('screenshot de uma página web'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetchFullContent' or 'scrape', which might also involve web content retrieval, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fetchFullContent' or 'scrape'. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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

• ragB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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. While it mentions 'extração inteligente de conteúdo' and references Apify RAG Web Browser, it doesn't describe important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what happens when JavaScript rendering is enabled. The description is insufficient for a tool with 7 parameters and complex functionality.

  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 immediately conveys the core functionality. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information about what the tool does.

  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 web search and extraction tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. While concise, it doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, or provide context about the extraction intelligence. With no annotations and no output schema, more completeness would be expected for such a feature-rich tool.

  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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

  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 performs web search with intelligent content extraction, providing a specific verb ('Busca web') and resource ('conteúdo'). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'extração inteligente de conteúdo' and referencing Apify RAG Web Browser, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from fetchFullContent, scrape, or screenshot.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (fetchFullContent, scrape, screenshot). The description mentions it's similar to Apify RAG Web Browser, but this doesn't help an agent choose between available alternatives in this server.

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

• fetchFullContentB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool fetches full content, implying a read operation, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like error handling, performance characteristics, or whether it requires specific permissions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, though it at least clarifies the operation type.

  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 in Portuguese that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and context.

  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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and its context (post-RAG retrieval), but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration with siblings. Without an output schema, it should ideally mention return values, but it doesn't, leaving gaps in completeness.

  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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'contentHandle' further or provide examples). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

  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: 'Busca conteúdo completo de um resultado anterior de RAG obtido em contentMode=preview' (Fetches full content from a previous RAG result obtained in contentMode=preview). It specifies the verb 'busca' (fetches) and the resource 'conteúdo completo' (full content), and distinguishes it from the sibling 'rag' tool by indicating it works on previous results from that tool. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'scrape' or 'screenshot' tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

  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 implies when to use this tool: after obtaining a RAG result in contentMode=preview, to get the full content. It distinguishes from the 'rag' sibling by indicating this is for follow-up retrieval. However, it doesn't provide explicit alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when not to use it vs. 'scrape'), and no prerequisites are mentioned, so it's at an implied usage level.

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