Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• match_receipts_to_bank_csvA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description takes on full disclosure and does well, warning about best-effort regex extraction, no OCR for scanned images, and the need to review 'unmatched' and 'extractionIssues' lists. It does not detail the output structure, but the key limitations are transparent.

  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 the core action, followed by concise caveats. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy.

  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 no output schema or annotations, but the description covers the algorithm, expected inputs, and limitations. It mentions returning 'unmatched' and 'extractionIssues' lists but does not describe the full return shape or the meaning of date-tolerance beyond high level.

  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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It adds context about CSV content (date + EUR amount) and matching logic, but it does not explicitly map parameters like dateToleranceDays to its behavior, leaving partial gap.

  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 matches receipt PDFs against a bank statement CSV by extracting amount/date and comparing with exact-amount/date-tolerance matching. It is specific about inputs and behavior, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tool match_bank_csv_to_vouchers.

  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 is provided about when to use this tool instead of match_bank_csv_to_vouchers or other siblings. The description explains what it does but lacks exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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

• match_bank_csv_to_vouchersA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: it fetches the voucher list itself (paginated, date-range padded), matches by exact amount and tolerance, and highlights the /voucherlist endpoint's traversal limit. This goes beyond a simple 'matches transactions' and gives valuable operational 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?

  Two dense sentences convey the entire purpose without filler. The first sentence front-loads the primary function, and the second adds crucial edge-case behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

  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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers the input format, matching logic, self-fetching behavior, pagination, and the 10,000-entry limit with a mitigation strategy. It does not explicitly state the output format, but for a matching tool this 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?

  The schema already describes voucherType, voucherStatus, and csvContent (75% coverage). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying that csvContent must contain date and EUR amount columns, and clarifies the date-tolerance window concept. Some parameter details are still left to the reader.

  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 parses a bank statement CSV and matches transactions against Lexware vouchers using exact amount and date-tolerance criteria. It distinguishes from siblings like match_receipts_to_bank_csv by specifying the bank CSV + voucher matching focus.

  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 provides practical guidance on narrowing voucherType/voucherStatus for specific categories and warns about the 10,000-entry limit with a split-by-date-range workaround. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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

• executeA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility and delivers extensively. It discloses sandbox limitations (no API key, filesystem, process, imports, fetch, or arbitrary network access), write-blocking behavior based on server flags, response handling (even non-OK responses are returned for lexware.request), and file upload precautions (never inline bytes; use contentPath). This goes far beyond minimal disclosure.

  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 long but well-structured and front-loaded: purpose, then search guidance, sandbox constraints, type definitions, and examples. Every section earns its place, though the extensive TypeScript type declarations make it denser than typical. It is appropriately sized for a code-execution tool, but less concise than shorter counterparts.

  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 the tool's complexity and lack of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers sandbox restrictions, write permissions, request/response shapes, and provides examples illustrating expected return patterns. However, it does not explicitly state that the arrow function's return value becomes the tool's output, nor does it mention execution timeouts or error handling for thrown exceptions, leaving minor gaps.

  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 already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds substantial meaning for the 'code' parameter by defining the available globals (lexware, spec), request/response types, multipart rules, and two complete examples. It does not add much for maxRequests beyond the schema's description, but the code semantics are richly enhanced.

  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 opens with 'Execute a constrained Lexware Office API workflow by running a JavaScript async arrow function,' specifying a clear verb, resource, and mechanism. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly directing users to 'search first when you need endpoint/domain guidance,' clarifying that this tool executes rather than explores.

  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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use search first when you need endpoint/domain guidance; do not guess Lexware paths from memory.' This not only tells when to use the tool but also names the alternative (search) and the condition for switching. It further clarifies constraints like read-only defaults and checking spec.info.writesEnabled before writes.

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

• searchA
  5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses sandbox restrictions (no network, filesystem, process, fetch, imports, API key), return behavior (JSON-serializable data, console logs captured), and a critical check (spec.info.writesEnabled) before planning writes. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure.

  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?

  Although the description is relatively long, it is densely packed with actionable information. The structure front-loads the purpose, then logically covers usage, globals, key starting points, sandbox constraints, and examples. Every sentence adds value, and the code examples are illustrative rather than 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?

  The tool is complex (user-supplied JavaScript), has no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers all necessary context: what to query, the shape of the catalog, examples, restrictions, and the writesEnabled safety check. It is fully self-contained for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema only offers a terse description for 'code', but the tool description provides extensive semantics: the code must be an async arrow function, a global 'spec' object is available, and examples demonstrate valid usage patterns. This goes far beyond schema coverage.

  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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the curated Lexware Office API catalog by running a JavaScript async arrow function.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by stating 'Use this before execute' and positioning the tool as a discovery mechanism.

  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?

  Explicitly instructs when to use the tool ('Use this before execute') and what to use it for (discover endpoints, request shapes, response notes, workflows, caveats). This implicitly contrasts with the 'execute' sibling, providing clear contextual guidance without needing to name alternatives.

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