Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_balanceB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the balance is 'current' and in BDT, but does not disclose further behavioral traits like error handling or constraints. No contradiction with annotations.

  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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. No unnecessary 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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is somewhat adequate but lacks detail about the return value or what 'balance' means (e.g., monetary balance, units). Could be more informative.

  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 does not mention the 'courier' parameter at all. It does not explain the enum values, the default, or its optional nature.

  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 specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'merchant's current account balance', and the scope 'with a courier (BDT)'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'list_couriers' and 'create_parcel'.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no situations to avoid. The description simply states what it does without usage context.

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

• track_parcelA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description is consistent, stating 'Look up' which implies read-only behavior. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, auth) are disclosed, so the description adds no extra value beyond annotations.

  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 extremely concise with two short sentences. Every word is informative and there is no fluff or repetition.

  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 lookup tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It omits details about the response format, possible errors, and the courier parameter's role. This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

  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 lists three parameter names (consignmentId, invoice, trackingCode) and says to use any one, but does not explain their formats, constraints, or the courier parameter. The enum for courier is not mentioned. This provides only minimal semantic help.

  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 'Look up the current delivery status of a parcel,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also distinguishes from sibling tools (list_couriers, create_parcel, etc.) by focusing on tracking.

  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 provides explicit guidance on parameter selection: 'Provide any ONE of: consignmentId, invoice, or trackingCode.' However, it does not discuss when not to use this tool or potential alternatives, but given sibling tools are very different, this is sufficient.

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

• list_couriersA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying the output includes credential configuration status. No contradiction exists, and the description complements the annotations effectively.

  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 long with no extraneous words. It front-loads the core functionality (listing couriers) and adds a key detail (credential status) efficiently.

  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 or output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it lists couriers and their credential configuration. However, without an output schema, the exact structure is unspecified, which is a minor gap.

  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?

  No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no param info (not needed), but clearly states the scope of output (all couriers with credentials status), which aids understanding.

  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 all supported couriers and indicates whether each is configured with credentials. The verb 'list' and resource 'couriers' are specific, and the description distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., get_courier_locations) which likely return different 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?

  No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_courier_locations or track_parcel. The description does not mention prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

• create_parcelA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations indicate non-readonly and non-destructive; description adds that it creates a booking, uses invoice as idempotency key, and returns consignment/tracking. No contradiction, but does not mention rate limits or error handling.

  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?

  Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by essential details. No redundant information.

  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 9 parameters and nested meta object, description addresses key nuances (idempotency, COD unit, Pathao ID resolution). Lacks mention of duplicate invoice handling and error scenarios, but overall sufficient for selection and invocation.

  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 covers 44% of params with descriptions; description adds meaning to codAmount (BDT, 0=prepaid), invoice (unique per order), and meta (Pathao structure with ID resolution). Other params like recipientName and address lack extra context but schema provides 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?

  Clearly states booking a delivery with Bangladesh courier, returns consignment id and tracking code. Distinguishes from siblings like list_couriers or track_parcel.

  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 guidance on COD amount unit, invoice uniqueness for idempotency, and need to resolve IDs via get_courier_locations for Pathao. Could explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but context from sibling tools helps.

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

• get_courier_locationsA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description explains the hierarchical traversal pattern (city->zone->area via parentId) and the relationship to create_parcel. No contradictions with annotations.

  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 that front-load the main purpose and immediately follow with usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place without fluff.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  Given the tool's simplicity (hierarchical lookup of location IDs), the description fully covers what it does, how to navigate levels, and how to use the output. No output schema needed; return values are implied.

  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?

  With only 33% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining the hierarchical dependency (parentId for zone/area) and providing usage context. It clarifies the enum behavior implicitly and mentions the default courier.

  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 fetches hierarchical location IDs (cities, zones, areas) for couriers like Pathao. It specifies the verb 'get' and the resource 'structured location IDs', distinguishing it from siblings such as list_couriers which lists couriers, and create_parcel which uses these IDs.

  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 explicitly states the tool is 'For couriers that address by structured location IDs (e.g. Pathao)' and explains how to use the resulting IDs in create_parcel. While it doesn't state when not to use it, the context is clear and sufficient.

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