Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_financialsB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as fetching read-only table data, which implies a safe read operation, but doesn't disclose data freshness, pagination, or whether the tables are comprehensive or summarized views. For a non-mutating data fetch tool this is acceptable but not rich.

  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 efficient sentence that lists the specific financial statement types returned. Zero waste, though the list is somewhat long. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and adds the data source detail without fluff.

  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 single-parameter data-fetch tool with no output schema, the description reasonably covers what's returned. However, it doesn't clarify how it differs from get_fundamentals, which could lead to incorrect tool selection, and doesn't note data freshness or coverage limitations. Adequate but with identifiable gaps.

  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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the symbol parameter fully documented ('NSE/BSE trading symbol, e.g. TCS, RELIANCE, MTARTECH'). The description names the data categories returned but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema for the single symbol parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 tool retrieves 'Financial statement tables' (quarterly results, P&L, balance sheet, cash flow, ratios, shareholding) for an Indian stock from Screener.in. It identifies the specific resource (financial statements) and the data source (Screener.in). It doesn't fully distinguish from get_fundamentals, which could overlap significantly, so it's not 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 Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools include get_fundamentals, which likely overlaps in purpose, but the description provides no differentiation or exclusion criteria. There's no note about when financial statements are needed vs. fundamentals or peers.

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

• get_peersB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It identifies the data source (Screener.in) and the nature of the output (comparison table of peers), but doesn't disclose potential behaviors like scrape delays, rate limiting, unavailable data for certain symbols, or what happens for symbols without sector peer data.

  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?

  A single, efficient sentence that packs in the purpose (peer comparison), scope (Indian stocks), content (P/E, ROE, market cap), and source (Screener.in). 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?

  For a single-required-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the basics well. However, there's no mention of the output format/structure, whether the peer set is defined by Screener.in's sector classification, or edge cases. Given its relative simplicity, this is a slight gap but not severe.

  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%, and the parameter 'symbol' has a clear description with concrete examples (TCS, RELIANCE, MTARTECH). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema since the symbol parameter is self-explanatory. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

  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 tool provides a sector peer comparison table for an Indian stock, listing metrics like P/E, ROE, market cap. It names the source (Screener.in), which adds useful context. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, but its purpose is specific and clear.

  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 it (when you want peer comparison data for a stock), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like get_fundamentals or get_financials. The context is clear but no exclusionary guidance is provided.

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

• get_chartA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does describe the metric structure and lookback window, but doesn't mention return format, frequency of data points, whether historical adjustments are made, or any rate-limiting concerns. It's a read operation, which is reasonably clear.

  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 concise sentences with zero filler. The provided examples and days explanation are efficient and front-loaded. Slightly sparse but every sentence 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?

  No output schema exists, so the description must hint at return semantics; the metric examples partially convey this. Given the moderate complexity (3 params, no enums) and no output schema, the description is adequate but could benefit from noting data granularity (daily/eod) and source limitations.

  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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 3 parameters. The description adds modest value by showing real metric examples ('Price-DMA50-Volume', 'Quarter Sales', 'EPS') that illustrate valid key formats beyond the generic schema field. Baseline 3 with slight credit for concrete examples.

  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 provides time-series data for an Indian stock from a specific API, with concrete metric examples. It distinguishes itself reasonably from siblings (get_financials, get_fundamentals target fundamentals/ratios, not chart series), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate.

  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 (when you need time-series/chart data for an Indian stock) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. With siblings like get_financials and get_fundamentals, the guidance is only implicit via the metric examples.

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

• get_fundamentalsA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It identifies the data source (Screener.in) and the return shape (ratios + pros/cons + about), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose freshness/delay of data, whether coverage is limited to certain stocks, or failure behavior for invalid symbols. For a clearly read-only informational tool these gaps are moderate.

  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?

  A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose (key ratios scorecard) and lists deliverable content without waste. It conveys source and scope compactly. It could arguably be slightly more structured but is not verbose or redundant.

  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 single-parameter, no-output-schema read-only tool, the description covers the core deliverable list adequately. However, it doesn't mention the return format, value discipline (e.g., updated annually vs real-time), or any caveats about coverage breadth on Screener.in. Given the simplicity, this is minimally complete but not richly so.

  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 100% and the symbol parameter is well documented in the schema with examples (TCS, RELIANCE, MTARTECH). The description adds context by indicating the symbol must be an Indian NSE/BSE stock, slightly enriching the schema. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 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 a specific verb+resource combination: it returns a 'key ratios scorecard' for an Indian stock from Screener.in, listing specific metrics (P/E, P/B, ROE, ROCE, market cap, dividend yield). It also adds the pros/cons and about sections, distinguishing it from siblings like get_financials (financial statements) and get_peers (comparison).

  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 identifies the tool as a ratios scorecard distinct from financial statements and peers, which implies appropriate usage for snapshot ratio analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly say when-not-to-use, state alternatives, or note prerequisites like whether the symbol must be an Indian/NSE/BSE stock beyond the implicit mention.

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