Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• find_blocksB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explains the analysis sequence (current impulse leg, then per Fibonacci zone) and that the tool reports the zone price is currently in. This makes the read-only, analytical behavior concrete, even though it does not explicitly state side-effect status or data dependencies.

  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?

  Three sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by useful behavioral detail and a cross-reference. No filler. The cross-reference is terse but earns its place.

  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 output schema presumably covers return values, and the behavior is well described. However, with 5 optional parameters, no annotations, and no selection guidance versus siblings, the description leaves the agent to infer input constraints and when this tool is the right choice.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of coin, limit, candles, interval, or include_candles. The only parameter-related hint is 'Same input options as analyze_structure,' which defers to another tool rather than clarifying defaults, constraints, or formats.

  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 names specific objects (fair value gaps, order blocks, pullback zones) and a concrete reporting behavior (impulse leg, Fibonacci zones, current price zone). It does not explicitly contrast itself with analyze_structure or find_liquidity_sweeps, but the resource and scope are clear enough for an agent to tell it apart.

  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 when block locations within Fibonacci zones are needed, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over its siblings or when not to use it. The note 'Same input options as analyze_structure' addresses input compatibility, not selection criteria.

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

• find_liquidity_sweepsA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a solid job: it explains the exact behavioral condition for a sweep and what the result contains (the sweeping candle and every level it took out). It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects, but the analytical nature and result-focused wording make the behavior reasonably transparent.

  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 compact and front-loaded with the core concept, followed by a clear definition and result behavior. It avoids unnecessary filler, though the first sentence's phrasing is slightly awkward. Overall, every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy for an agent to parse.

  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 output schema exists, so return values do not need to be fully explained, and the description gives the key concept and result contents. However, because there are no annotations, no explicit usage exclusions, and no real parameter semantics, the description leaves meaningful gaps for a 5-parameter tool with two siblings.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0% and there are 5 parameters, so the description needed to compensate. Instead it only says 'Same input options as analyze_structure,' which points elsewhere rather than explaining coin, limit, candles, interval, or include_candles. This is minimal added semantic value over the raw 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 identifies the action ('Find stop-hunts') and defines the resource precisely: a sweep is a structural break that pushes through prior swing levels and closes back inside. It also distinguishes the tool's result by stating each result names the sweeping candle and every level taken out, which makes it distinct from generic structure analysis.

  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 the tool (when you need to identify liquidity sweeps/stop-hunts) and references 'Same input options as analyze_structure,' but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over find_blocks or analyze_structure. There are no exclusions or alternative routing conditions, so the usage guidance is mostly implicit.

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

• analyze_structureA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it states the read-only nature, the Hyperliquid public endpoint source, the fallback example behavior, and the effect of include_candles. It does not cover edge cases like conflicting coin and candles inputs, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

  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 well structured: a one-line summary, a list of return contents, input-mode instructions, and a targeted note about drawing. Every sentence carries useful information, and the most important behavioral details are 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?

  For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers return values, data sources, input modes, and the include_candles use case, while the output schema handles return structure. It is slightly incomplete regarding sibling-tool routing and ambiguity when both coin and candles are supplied, but overall an agent can invoke it correctly.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains coin formats and their effect, the candles alternative, the neither/default example, and include_candles semantics. Limit and interval are not explicitly described, but the default values are in the schema and the example hints at interval formatting.

  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: 'Read market structure' and immediately names the core outputs: trend, ChoCh, and BOS. This makes the tool's function unmistakable and semantically distinguishes it from siblings focused on liquidity sweeps and blocks.

  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 gives clear conditional guidance for input modes: supply a coin, supply your own candles, or supply neither for an example. It also explains when to set include_candles=true. However, it never mentions when to choose this tool over find_liquidity_sweeps or find_blocks, so alternative-tool selection is left implicit.

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