Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• add_expenseC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral context such as validation rules, required vs optional fields, date handling, or side effects. It only restates the operation and discloses nothing beyond the tool name.

  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 short and front-loaded, with no filler. However, it adds little information beyond the title 'Add Expense', so its brevity comes at the expense of usefulness.

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

  Completeness1/5

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

  For a 4-parameter mutation tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, this description is radically incomplete. It lacks required/optional field guidance, defaults, behavioral effects, and any differentiation from sibling tools.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description mentions no parameter details. Amount, category, description, and transaction_date receive no semantic guidance, leaving an agent without information about formats, constraints, or optionality.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('an expense to the expense tracker'), which clearly communicates the operation. It also distinguishes this tool from its siblings like edit_expense, delete_expense, and list_expenses by naming a distinct action.

  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?

  Usage is only implied: an agent would infer this tool is for adding expenses, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use it versus alternatives. With siblings including 'credit', the description provides no routing cues or exclusions.

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

• list_expensesB
  3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys that this is a read-only listing operation over a date range and uses 'all' to indicate no filtering beyond the dates, but it does not mention ordering, pagination, or whether the dates are inclusive.

  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 a single sentence with no wasted words and front-loads the main action. It is concise, though slightly under-specified in ways covered by other dimensions.

  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 simple two-parameter listing tool with an output schema, this is minimally viable: it states the resource and the date-range filter. However, it lacks sibling differentiation and explicit parameter semantics, so it is not fully complete for an agent making a confident selection.

  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%, so the description must compensate, but it only says 'between given 2 dates' without mapping from_date and to_date to the range boundaries or explaining inclusivity. It adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names themselves.

  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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all the expenses') plus a date-range constraint, so an agent can tell this is a retrieval tool. It is distinct from add_expense, edit_expense, and delete_expense, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from summarize_expenses.

  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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like summarize_expenses. It implies a date-range listing use case, but it never states exclusions or directs the agent to another sibling for aggregated summaries.

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

• creditB
  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. It says 'Add' which implies a create/write operation, but it does not disclose effects on existing data, whether amounts must be positive, validation behavior, or any side effects. This is minimally transparent for a mutating 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?

  The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action and resource type efficiently and 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 tool is simple and the output schema exists, so return-value details are not necessary. The core purpose is clear, and the schema covers required parameters. However, the lack of annotations, behavioral details, and explicit usage guidance leaves meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke this tool.

  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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not explain the meaning of amount, category, description, or transaction_date beyond the general credit/income context. The field names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds little specific parameter value.

  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 specifies a verb ('Add'), a resource ('credit/income transaction'), and the target system ('expense tracker'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling add_expense by explicitly labeling the transaction as credit/income, though it does not name the sibling directly.

  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?

  Usage context is implied: this tool is for income/credit transactions, while add_expense is presumably for expenses. However, the description provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives by name.

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

• summarize_expensesB
  3.1/5.0
  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 disclosing behavior. 'Summarize' implies an aggregate/read-only operation, but the description does not state whether it mutates data, what kind of summary is produced, or any operational caveats. It is minimally transparent but leaves important traits unstated.

  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 clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource and immediately states the date-range scope. Every word 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?

  For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is nearly adequate: an agent can infer the tool takes a date range and produces a summary. However, it does not clarify what kind of summary is produced or how this differs from the sibling list_expenses, leaving a meaningful completeness gap.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the meaning that from_date and to_date form a date range ('between two dates'), which is useful, but it does not clarify inclusivity, format expectations beyond the schema, or any additional constraints. This is partial compensation, not full.

  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 uses a specific verb ('summarize') and resource ('expenses') and specifies a date-range scope, making the operation clear. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from list_expenses, which is the closest sibling and could also be interpreted as covering date-filtered expense data.

  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?

  There is no guidance on when to use summarize_expenses versus list_expenses or other siblings. The date-range phrasing implies a use case, but no explicit condition, exclusion, or alternative routing is provided.

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

• delete_expenseB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It communicates that the operation is destructive ('Delete'), but it does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, what happens if the transaction_id does not exist, or any side effects. This is a meaningful gap for a deletion 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?

  The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repeated information. It efficiently communicates the essential action and parameter in eight 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?

  Given the tool has only one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally viable for invocation. However, since there are no annotations and this is a destructive operation, it leaves gaps around error behavior, permanence, and whether deletion cascades to related data.

  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%, so the description must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. It mentions 'transaction ID', which echoes the parameter name but adds only minimal meaning; it does not explain where to obtain the ID or how to handle invalid or missing IDs.

  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 states a specific action ('Delete'), a specific resource ('an existing expense'), and the exact identifier used ('by transaction ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_expense, edit_expense, or list_expenses.

  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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, when deletion is appropriate, or what prerequisites must be met (e.g., the expense must already exist and have a known transaction_id). The description only states the action without contextual routing.

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

• edit_expenseB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden alone. It usefully discloses patch-like partial-update behavior ('Only the fields provided... will be updated') but omits other behavioral details such as required identifiers, validation, permissions, or error behavior.

  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 with no filler; the action is front-loaded and the partial-update caveat 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?

  Because an output schema exists, return-value documentation is not required from the description. The schema plus partial-update note give a minimally usable picture, but with no annotations and no parameter explanations the definition is not rich enough for full autonomy.

  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 adds no meanings for transaction_id, amount, category, description, or transaction_date. It only says fields provided will be updated, which is a behavior note rather than parameter-level guidance.

  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 action (edit) and target (existing expense), and the partial-update note differentiates it from add/delete. It doesn't name sibling tools or enumerate editable fields, so it stops short of a 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 phrase 'existing expense' implies the tool is for modifying records already created, which gives some selection context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer add_expense, delete_expense, or credit, nor any exclusions.

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