Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• key_rateA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation ('Get') and time series data, but lacks details on data freshness, time zone, pagination, or whether the operation is safe. The description is not misleading but is minimal.

  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 redundant information. Front-loaded with the main action and defaults. Every word adds 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?

  With an output schema present, return values are covered. The description explains the resource (CBR key-rate time series) and default range, but omits time zone, frequency, and any edge cases. Adequate for a simple tool but not fully complete.

  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 explains that parameters define the 'requested range' and notes a default of 30 days, adding some meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not clarify date format, optionality, or parameter semantics beyond this.

  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 'Get', the resource 'CBR key-rate time series', and the scope 'for the requested range' with a default of 'most recent 30 days'. This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_rate' (likely a single value) and 'history_rates' (broader).

  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 like 'get_rate' or 'inflation'. The description only states default behavior (30 days) but does not specify prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions.

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

• history_ratesA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the date range limit and the need for repeated calls for longer ranges. However, it does not describe the return format (though an output schema exists), potential errors, or whether the data is read-only. The mutation status is implied as read because it is a GET-like operation.

  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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then immediately adding the critical constraint. Every word serves a purpose, no redundancy or 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?

  The tool has 3 required parameters, no parameter descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema exists but is not referenced. The description covers the core purpose and a key limitation, but omits parameter semantics and return value context. It is adequate but feels incomplete for a new user.

  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 only mentions 'single currency', hinting that char_code is a currency code, but provides no format or examples. It offers no additional meaning for date_from and date_to beyond what schema names imply (start and end dates).

  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 exactly what the tool does with a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('exchange-rate series'), and scope ('official CBR', 'single currency', 'between two dates inclusive'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'get_rate' (likely for a single rate) by emphasizing a series of rates over a date range.

  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?

  The description explicitly mentions the 366-day cap and instructs to call repeatedly for longer windows. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or compare to sibling tools, such as suggesting 'get_rate' for a single day.

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

• get_rateA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It indicates a read operation and lists returned fields, but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or side effects. Adequate but minimal.

  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, well-structured sentence that conveys purpose, parameter usage, and return value in a compact form. No unnecessary words.

  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?

  The tool has an output schema, so return details are covered externally. The description provides essential context for a simple read operation. Slight deduction for not mentioning any constraints or error conditions.

  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 input schema has 0% coverage (no descriptions for parameters). The description adds meaning: char_code is implied as the currency code, and on_date is explained as an optional date with fallback behavior. This compensates well for the schema gap.

  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 retrieves the official Bank of Russia exchange rate for a single currency on a given date, with fallback to latest date. It specifies returned fields (nominal, value, per-unit rate, effective quote date). Although sibling tools are present, the description is specific enough to distinguish usage.

  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 explains when to use the tool (single currency, optional date) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or compare to sibling tools like history_rates or key_rate. Usage is implied but lacks alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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

• inflationA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It mentions data source and time range behavior but does not disclose any limitations, rate limits, or response details. Adequate for a simple retrieval.

  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?

  Single sentence of 22 words, front-loaded with action, no unnecessary words.

  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 presence of output schema and simple parameters, the description covers source, metric, time range defaults. Could mention return format but not required with output schema.

  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 0% and parameters are not individually described, but the description implies year_from and year_to define the range with defaults. Adds meaning beyond schema 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?

  Clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'monthly year-over-year CPI inflation', the source 'CBR', and the time range. Distinct from sibling tools like get_rate or key_rate.

  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?

  Specifies the use case (year range, defaults to previous and current year). Does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives, but context implies use for inflation data.

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

• statisticsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It discloses what data is returned, but not behavioral traits like freshness, rate limits, or error handling. For a simple read tool, this is acceptable but not thorough.

  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?

  Single sentence that is direct and informative. No unnecessary words or repetition.

  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 no parameters and a presumably descriptive output schema, the description covers the key output items. However, it could mention the structure or format briefly, but not required.

  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?

  Input schema is empty (0 parameters), so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. Description adds no parameter info but focuses on output, which 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 the tool provides a 'compact macro snapshot' listing specific indicators (key rate, USD/EUR/CNY rates, YoY inflation, period). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_rate' (singular) or 'inflation' (singular) by being a composite.

  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?

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, e.g., for a broader overview vs. specific indicators. Usage is implied by the composite nature, but lacks when-not or alternative names.

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