Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• furlen_renderA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Discloses full pipeline and return of render id, but lacks error handling, duration estimates, or cost/rate limit info. No annotations to share burden.

  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?

  Only two sentences, front-loaded with main action, no extraneous words. Every sentence contributes value.

  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?

  Covers pipeline and result, but missing typical duration, error scenarios, and operational context (e.g., cost, quotas). Adequate but not fully comprehensive.

  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 parameters with descriptions; tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond summarizing overall functionality.

  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 turns CSV into an animated video, enumerates pipeline steps, and distinguishes from sibling by mentioning polling with furlen_render_status.

  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?

  Implied usage (to create a render) but no explicit when-to-use vs siblings (furlen_public_data, furlen_render_status) or when not to use.

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

• furlen_render_statusA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description covers key behaviors: returns status, progress, downloadUrl, and typical timing. It does not detail failure modes or error handling, but suffices for a status-check tool.

  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. First sentence states function and deliverables, second gives practical timing and polling advice. Every sentence earns its place.

  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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers return fields, lifecycle, and usage pattern adequately. Could mention error info on failure, but overall sufficient.

  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?

  Only one parameter (renderId) with schema coverage 100%. The description adds no extra detail beyond the schema's note that it's returned by furlen_render, so meets baseline but adds no enrichment.

  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 verb 'check' and the resource 'Furlen render job', and specifies the returned status lifecycle. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like furlen_render or furlen_public_data, but the purpose is unambiguous.

  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 context on when to use (after initiating a render) and how to poll (every few seconds based on typical 30-90 second duration), but does not mention when not to use or alternatives.

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

• furlen_public_dataA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that unsupported subjects return a 422 with code 'subject_unsupported', meaning the data does not exist, and that it does not guess. It also mentions provenance.

  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?

  Two sentences, direct and front-loaded. It conveys essential information without fluff. Could be slightly more concise but is efficient.

  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 is simple (1 param, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, error handling, and output format. No major gaps.

  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 only parameter 'prompt' has 100% schema coverage. The description adds value by specifying it should be in plain English and providing examples, which goes beyond the schema's description.

  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 fetches real public datasets using plain English, lists specific sources (World Bank, IMF, etc.), and explains the return value includes rows, a csv string for rendering, and provenance. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning the csv string for furlen_render.

  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?

  It tells when to use (fetching public data) and how to handle a 422 error (do not retry). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use, but the context of siblings (rendering tools) implies this is for data retrieval.

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