Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_rate_historyA
  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 full burden. It discloses the API limit (367 days) but does not mention error behavior, response format, or if the operation is read-only. Minimal but not misleading.

  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, front-loaded with purpose and a key constraint. No extraneous information.

  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 no output schema and moderate complexity (4 parameters), the description covers purpose and a constraint but lacks details on return values, parameter behavior (e.g., table default), and error cases. Adequate but with 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?

  Schema description coverage is 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying the table enum or date format. Baseline 3 applies.

  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 gets NBP exchange rate history for a currency over a date range, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_rate (single rate) and get_rate_history (history).

  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 vs. alternatives like get_rate or list_rates. Only a constraint (max 367 days) is mentioned, but no context for selection.

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

• get_gold_historyA
  3.6/5.0
  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. It discloses the API limit (367 days) but does not mention return format, data structure, or any side effects. Minimal transparency for a read 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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loaded with the action. Every word is necessary, no redundancy.

  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?

  Given the absence of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., an array of objects with date and price). It does not, leaving the agent unaware of the response structure.

  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?

  Both parameters have schema descriptions ('YYYY-MM-DD'), but the description adds important semantic information: the date range must be at most 367 days. This constraint is not in the schema and aids correct invocation.

  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 gets NBP gold fixing history over a date range, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_gold' (likely single) and 'get_rate_history' (different rate type) by specifying 'gold fixing history'.

  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 for gold history over a date range and includes a constraint (max 367 days). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'get_gold' or 'get_rate_history', nor does it provide exclusions.

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

• get_rateA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It mentions publication schedule but does not disclose error handling (e.g., invalid date, missing currency) or describe the return format/response structure. Partially transparent but missing key behavioral details.

  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 concise (~80 words), front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence provides meaningful context without redundancy. Efficiently structured for quick comprehension.

  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 absence of an output schema and the presence of sibling tools, the description explains table usage and date behavior well but omits the return value structure (e.g., response fields). Lacks completeness for an agent to fully understand the output.

  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% with parameter descriptions. The description adds significant value beyond schema by explaining the purpose of each table, default date behavior, and appropriate usage contexts for each table parameter.

  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 gets the NBP exchange rate for a single currency vs PLN, optionally on a specific date. It distinguishes between table types (A, B, C) with specific purposes, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_rate_history.

  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 guidance on when to use each table (A for accounting, B for less common, C for FX transactions) and notes weekend/holiday unavailability. However, it does not directly compare with sibling tools or specify when not to use this tool.

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

• get_goldA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description adds context beyond schema: publishing frequency (daily on business days) and default behavior (latest fixing). However, it does not disclose error handling for missing dates, authentication needs, or rate limits. With no annotations, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

  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 filler. Every word adds value: verb, resource, unit, currency, fineness, date range, and publication frequency. Efficient and front-loaded.

  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?

  Despite no output schema, the description explains the return value (price in PLN per gram). However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., single number vs. object with metadata), which would be helpful for an agent. Still, the essential info 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% for the single parameter, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the parameter's purpose (specific date) and default behavior, but adds no additional syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

  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 explicitly states "Get the NBP gold fixing" with specific attributes (PLN per gram, 1000-fineness gold) and date handling. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_gold_history (history) and get_rate (different resource).

  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 indicates the tool is for a specific date or the latest fixing, and notes publication on business days. It does not explicitly exclude uses or compare to alternatives, but the context from sibling names (e.g., get_gold_history) implies usage scope.

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

• list_ratesA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation (list) but does not disclose potential side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the requested date lacks a published table. The behavior is simple, but missing details on output or error conditions.

  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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences with no redundant information. Every word serves a purpose, making it efficient for quick understanding.

  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 simple list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the purpose and usage context adequately. It could be improved by mentioning the return format or behavior when date is missing, but it remains largely complete given the tool's simplicity.

  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 50% (date has a description, table only has enum/default but no description). The description adds context like 'currency rates' and 'on a given date (or latest)', but does not explain the meaning of table types A, B, C. It adds marginal value beyond the schema.

  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 'List', the resource 'all currency rates from an NBP table', and the optional date scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_rate' (single rate) and 'get_rate_history' (historical rates) by focusing on listing multiple rates at once.

  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 states usefulness for 'seeing what's available and comparing multiple currencies at once', providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases when to use alternatives like 'get_rate' or 'get_rate_history', which are implied but not stated.

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

• convertA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations provided, but description fully discloses behavior: uses NBP mid-rate, Table A or B fallback, returns amount/rate/effective date, and special date rule.

  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?

  Extremely concise, two sentences plus a crucial note. No wasted words, front-loaded with action.

  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?

  Complete for a conversion tool with no output schema. Mentions returns, covers sibling differentiation, and addresses complexity of date rule.

  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%, but description adds significant context for rate_date and to_currency default beyond schema descriptions.

  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 tool converts currency using NBP mid-rate, specific verb+resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools that only get rates or history.

  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?

  Explicit primary use case (foreign-currency invoice to PLN for Polish bookkeeping) and critical guidance on rate_date parameter (use date before invoice date).

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