Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• seal_obligationsA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Beyond annotations that already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description adds meaningful context: it reports breaches that are already on the chain and cannot hide them. It also clarifies the exact conditions for verdict=met, which is genuinely useful behavioral information.

  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 tight and front-loaded with the core scanning purpose, then explains verdict logic and the return shape. The final 'Read-only.' is redundant with the annotations but harmless; otherwise every sentence contributes necessary context.

  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?

  For a zero-parameter, read-only audit tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: the return object fields, the meaning of verdict=met, and the non-mutating nature of the operation. Nothing critical is missing.

  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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on result semantics instead.

  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 identifies the action ('sweep every declared duty for silence') and the resource (obligations), and explains the verdict semantics. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like seal_verify or seal_get, but the role of a global audit/report operation is clear enough to distinguish it.

  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 this tool should be used: to check whether any declared duties are unsealed, owed, missed, or unconfirmed. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this over alternatives, so the usage guidance is left to inference.

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

• seal_expectA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the real-world consequences: a miss is recorded on a tamper-evident chain and the path's autonomy license is suspended. It also discloses that declarations are safe and can only be cancelled by an operator. This gives an agent accurate expectations about side effects and reversibility.

  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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by usage timing and safety caveats. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without padding 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?

  For a tool with no output schema and modest annotations, the description covers purpose, usage timing, side effects, and safety constraints. It does not explicitly explain return behavior or list sibling alternatives, but the essential context for invoking the tool correctly is present.

  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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds conceptual framing around action, key, and deadline, but does not add significant per-parameter details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 what the tool does: bind yourself or the system to future work by declaring that a specific effect must be sealed by a deadline. It identifies the core resource (an expected intent keyed by action/key) and the consequence of missing the deadline. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like seal_commit or seal_admit by name, so it falls just short of full sibling distinction.

  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 gives concrete guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this at decision time' with a worked example of accepting a return and declaring the refund duty. It also notes that declaring duties is always safe and that only an operator can cancel one. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to a sibling alternative, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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

• seal_abortA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations convey read/write and idempotency, and the description adds non-obvious behavior: it returns {released: true}, only the fence holder may abort, the reason is recorded on the chain, and aborting in uncertain cases risks a second charge. 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?

  Purpose, return value, authorization, and exclusion are front-loaded in compact sentences. The warning about second charges is meaningful, not filler, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

  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?

  With rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers authorization, return value, the condition for a legitimate abort, and the failure mode to avoid. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

  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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds only minor context (e.g., reason is recorded on chain) but does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters.

  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 states a specific verb and resource: release a claim after a failure where nothing irreversible happened. It provides precise scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools by name (it refers to a witness 'settle' rather than a listed sibling), 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 Guidelines5/5

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

  It gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('after a failure where NOTHING irreversible happened') and an explicit when-not-to-use with alternative ('If the effect may have fired... do NOT abort — leave the claim and let a witness (settle) decide'). This is exactly the guidance an agent needs to avoid a double charge.

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

• seal_commitA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations indicate non-readOnly, non-idempotent, but the description goes beyond this: it explains the single-call constraint, the fence-holder-only restriction, refusal conditions (second commit, wrong fence, expired lease returns isError), and what the cert contains. It does not contradict annotations. A small gap is that it doesn't explicitly say whether the operation is atomic or how failures beyond refusal surface, but the behavioral context is strong.

  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?

  Four dense sentences, all earning their place: state the action, state the exact timing, state the failure modes and alternatives, and list the return contents. Front-loaded with the definitive action and then precise conditions. No filler.

  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?

  For a three-parameter protocol tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description answers the key practical questions: when to call it, when not to, constraints, refusal conditions, and return contents. Given the safety-critical nature, this is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

  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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds context for 'fence' (proves the caller), 'intent' (identifies one logical action), and 'result' (digested into cert, keep it small). That adds meaning beyond the schema, especially for 'result', but since the schema already carries full descriptions, baseline 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 is explicit about the verb ('Seal'), the resource ('a successful effect'), and its core actions: writes the tamper-evident certificate and closes the intent. It clearly stands apart from sibling tools like seal_abort and seal_admit by stating its exact role in the workflow.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  Provides explicit when-to-use instructions: 'Call it once, right after YOUR code ran the effect admitted by seal_admit (fresh=true).' It names the alternative (seal_abort), gives the condition for using it, and explicitly warns against calling either when unsure, routing that case to a witness. No ambiguity about the tool's position in the protocol.

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

• seal_getA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description reveals meaningful behavior: state value semantics, the unknown-intent behavior returning {error: 'unknown intent'} rather than a hard error, and the explicit statement 'Changes nothing'. This is rich, non-obvious 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?

  The description is compact and front-loaded: the primary purpose appears first, followed by essential return-field and state semantics, then routing guidance. Every sentence contributes information, and there is no redundant 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 there is no output schema, the description compensates well by listing the returned fields, explaining state values, describing the unknown-intent response, and clarifying the tool is read-only. It also disambiguates against closely related sibling tools. An agent has enough to call this tool correctly and interpret its output.

  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 already fully documents the single parameter with 100% coverage, including where the intent id comes from. The tool description only echoes the idea of 'one intent' and does not add meaning beyond the schema, so 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 states a precise verb and resource: 'Read-only status of one intent', and enumerates the exact fields returned. It also differentiates itself from sibling tools by naming seal_verify and seal_incident_receipt as alternatives for different needs.

  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 clearly establishes that this tool is for checking the status of a single intent and explicitly points to seal_verify for the whole chain and seal_incident_receipt for auditor-grade exports. It does not enumerate every exclusion scenario, but the contextual guidance is clear and actionable.

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

• seal_heartbeatA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true), the description explains why it is safe to repeat, what the return value is, and the conditions under which it fails ('Only the fence holder may extend... refused'). It also reveals the underlying purpose of preventing reclamation mid-flight, which adds meaningful 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?

  The description is three sentences and front-loads the core behavior, then adds lifecycle guidance, return shape, failure conditions, and idempotency. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

  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 absence of an output schema, the description correctly documents the return value ({lease_until}), the ownership requirement, the failure cases, and repeatability. For a lease-extension tool with clear annotations, nothing important is missing.

  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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description reinforces their role in the lease-extending flow but does not add substantial new parameter-level meaning beyond what is already present.

  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 verb ('Extend the lease') and a clear resource (a lease for an intent), and explicitly situates it between seal_admit and seal_commit. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools by lifecycle phase and purpose.

  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 clearly says when to call it ('periodically well inside the lease between seal_admit and seal_commit') and when it is refused (after lease expiry or intent close). It does not explicitly name alternative tools for when the effect is finished, but the lifecycle placement gives strong contextual guidance.

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

• seal_incident_receiptA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context beyond those hints: it is 'self-checking,' exports a verification result, and returns the specific data set (cert chain, tier, domain freeze state). It does not contradict 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?

  Three sentences, each earning its place: what the tool returns, that it changes nothing, and the sibling alternative. The purpose is front-loaded and there is zero 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?

  For a single-parameter export tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent needs: the input, the output contents, side effects (none), and the alternative for a different need. Nothing critical is missing.

  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%, so the schema fully documents the 'intent' parameter. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond indicating 'one intent,' which is already implied by the schema. Baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: a 'read-only, self-checking export for one intent' that returns 'full cert chain, tier, domain freeze state, and a chain verification result.' It also names the sibling alternative (seal_get) and distinguishes itself as the auditor/counterparty document, making its role unmistakable.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  The description gives explicit guidance: use this for audit/counterparty documentation and use seal_get for a quick status. This clearly separates the tool from its siblings and provides a concrete when-to-use / when-not-to-use rule.

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

• seal_verifyA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial context: it recomputes every link, returns ok:true with a count, or reports the exact position of the first problematic cert. It also confirms it runs entirely from the local store with no server trust.

  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 tight sentences with no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, the return behavior is specific, and the read-only reassurance is placed last as a practical usage note.

  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?

  For a zero-parameter, read-only verification tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers operation, constraints, success and failure return shapes, and safety. Nothing essential is missing.

  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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation burden exists.

  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?

  States a specific verb and resource: 'Verify the entire certificate chain from the store alone.' The qualifiers 'no network, no trust in this server' clearly distinguish it from server-dependent or network-dependent operations among the siblings.

  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 clear context: this is the local, offline, server-independent verification path and is safe to run any time. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full alternative routing.

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

• seal_admitA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it explains the fresh=true/fresh=false contract, the meaning of a missing cert, the rule not to re-run already-completed effects, and the conflict behavior for retries with the same key but different args. These details are not present in annotations or schema and meaningfully disclose the tool's operational semantics.

  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 dense but well-organized: the leading 'ADMISSION ONLY' warning, the alternative tool preference, the outcome contract, and the key guidance are each purposeful. No sentence is filler, and the critical caution is front-loaded.

  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?

  For a tool with no output schema and a non-obvious once-only admission protocol, the description covers the essential scenarios: winning, already complete, and mid-flight. It also covers the key parameter's reuse semantics and the need to call seal_commit. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

  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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the stable-key requirement for money-class actions and the conflict refusal behavior, which clarifies the `key` parameter beyond its schema description. It also gives a concrete example, 'order-777', making the semantics more actionable.

  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 verb and resource: 'Claim the right to run an irreversible action exactly once.' It also distinguishes itself from seal_propose by explaining that seal_admit requires the caller to hold the provider credential and own the effect. The purpose is immediately clear and not a tautology.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  The description explicitly says to prefer seal_propose when available and to use seal_admit only when your own code owns the effect. It also gives actionable guidance on what to do after each return outcome, including calling seal_commit and standing down on mid-flight results. This is strong when-to-use guidance.

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