Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• create_taskA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description goes beyond annotations by detailing resource consumption (points and daily slot) and auto-detection of platform from URL. No contradictions with annotations. It could mention more about idempotency or failure modes.

  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 very concise with five sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose, resource consumption, reference to another tool, auto-detection, and minimum requirements. No wasted words.

  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?

  The description covers key aspects like resource usage and platform detection but lacks return value explanation and details on daily slot. Given the absence of output schema and moderate complexity, it is somewhat incomplete.

  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?

  With 78% schema coverage, the description adds minimal parameter-specific info beyond the schema, such as minimum points for certain platforms and auto-detection. The schema already handles most parameters with descriptions.

  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 it creates a promotion task on Upvote.club, specifying the action and resource. It mentions key behaviors like spending points and auto-detecting platform, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like delete_task or list_platforms.

  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 advises calling get_api_reference for examples and errors, providing some guidance, but lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives or conditions for not using this tool. No exclusions for other tools.

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

• get_task_statusA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it returns specific progress info (actions completed, progress percentage, meaningful comment submissions), but does not disclose rate limits, error handling, or pagination. It is consistent with annotations, adding moderate value.

  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 concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose. No extraneous information; every word contributes to 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?

  For a simple status-check tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about output contents (actions, progress, comments). Annotations confirm read-only and open-world hints. Minor missing details about error conditions are acceptable given low complexity.

  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 'task_ids', with a description 'Task IDs from create_task'. The tool description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'status and progress of one or more Upvote.club tasks', with specific details like 'actions completed, progress percentage, meaningful comment submissions'. It distinguishes from sibling tools (create_task, delete_task, get_api_reference, list_platforms) through different verb-resource combinations.

  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 usage after creating tasks (task_ids from create_task), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools are not mentioned, so usage guidance is indirect.

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

• delete_taskA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Discloses side effects beyond annotations (refunds points, restores slot, cannot delete completed). Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent; description adds valuable context without contradiction.

  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, no fluff, front-loaded with key action and immediately relevant details. Every sentence serves a purpose.

  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?

  Covers all essential behavioral aspects for a simple delete operation. No output schema, but return value is implied. Slight gap: does not specify success/error response behavior.

  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 covers 100% of parameter documentation with clear description. Description does not add additional parameter information, so baseline score 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?

  Clearly states the tool deletes an Upvote.club task, explains side effects (refunds points, restores slot), and includes constraints (cannot delete completed, confirm with user). Distinguishes from siblings by specifying unique behavior.

  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?

  Explicitly advises to confirm with the user first and notes that completed tasks cannot be deleted. Does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the purpose is clear enough to infer when to use.

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

• get_api_referenceA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations (readOnlyHint=true) indicate read-only nature, and the description reinforces that this is a reference tool. No contradictions; adds context about contents such as request examples and billing rules, which are beyond annotations.

  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?

  Single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and includes specific content details and a usage hint. No unnecessary text.

  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 input schema and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and content well for a reference tool. However, it could specify the return format more explicitly.

  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?

  Input schema has no parameters (0 params, 100% coverage), so description need not add param info. Baseline 4 applies, and description does not repeat 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 provides the full API reference for Upvote.club, listing specific contents (inputs/outputs, examples, prices, errors) and distinguishes from sibling action-oriented tools like create_task or list_platforms.

  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?

  Explicitly suggests calling this tool before create_task when unsure about fields or pricing, providing a clear usage scenario. Does not mention when not to use, but context implies this is for reference and not for direct actions.

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

• list_platformsA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no safety concerns. Description adds detail on what data is returned (actions, prices, URLs) beyond annotations.

  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, no fluff. First sentence describes output, second gives usage guidance. Front-loaded effectively.

  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 parameters and no output schema, description covers return content and usage context. Lacks mention of pagination or limits, but reasonable for a simple list.

  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?

  No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%). With 0 params, baseline is 4; description does not need to add parameter info.

  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 social platforms with specific details (actions, prices, example URLs). Distinguishes from sibling tools that deal with tasks and API reference.

  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?

  Explicitly advises to call this first when unsure about platform/action. No when-not-to guidance, but the context is clear.

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