Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• add_expenseC
  2.8/5.0
  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 only states the action of adding an entry, but gives no information about side effects, required fields, validation rules, permissions, or return values. For a mutation tool, 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.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words, making it concise. However, it is too terse to provide meaningful guidance; key information about parameters and usage is absent. It is not a tautology, but it under-specifies for the tool's complexity.

  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?

  Given 5 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no parameter semantics, no return value expectations, no usage context, and no behavioral caveats. The tool is functionally a black box beyond its name.

  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?

  The input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention any parameter meanings. It only says 'new expense entry', which adds no value in explaining what date, amount, category, note, or subcategory represent. The description entirely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

  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 'Add a new expense entry to the database' uses a specific verb (Add) and resource (expense entry), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools list_expenses and summarize. It unambiguously identifies the action without ambiguity.

  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 wording 'Add a new expense entry' implies this tool is for creating new expense records. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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

• summarizeA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description adds the behavioral detail that the date range is inclusive, which is useful. With no annotations, the burden is on the description, but it does not disclose what the summary contains (e.g., totals, counts), what happens if category is null, or how results are formatted. It provides some but not rich behavioral context.

  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?

  A single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. No unnecessary words, and it efficiently conveys the core purpose.

  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?

  For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently detailed. It omits return value information (what a summary looks like), date format expectations, and how the optional category parameter affects behavior. Sibling tools are listed but not referenced as alternatives. The description is too thin for reliable invocation.

  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. It references 'category' and 'date range' but gives no format, types, or semantics for start_date and end_date. The optional category behavior is not explained. The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter names.

  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 'summarize' and the resource 'expenses by category', with a specific scope of 'inclusive date range'. This differentiates from sibling tools add_expense and list_expenses, which are about creating and listing, not aggregating.

  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 intended use is implied as a way to get a summarized view of expenses, contrasting with listing individual expenses. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, nor are alternatives named.

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

• list_expensesA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the date range is inclusive, which is useful, and 'list' implicitly indicates a read operation. However, it does not detail the return format, ordering, or edge cases such as invalid dates.

  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 one short sentence, front-loaded with the core action and object. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

  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 list tool, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It does not describe what fields are returned in the expense entries, lacks differentiation from the summarize sibling, and offers no troubleshooting or edge-case information. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, more detail would improve 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?

  The input schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by stating an 'inclusive date range', indicating that both start_date and end_date are inclusive bounds and that they define a filter. It does not, however, specify date formats or types.

  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 tool lists expense entries, which is a specific verb+resource. The inclusive date range adds precision, and it is distinct from sibling tools (add_expense, summarize).

  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: use this tool when you need to list expenses within a date range. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid using it or consider alternatives like summarize, providing only implied context.

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