Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_trainsA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes input parameters and output (formatted string with times/durations), but lacks details on side effects, authentication (api_key optional but not explained), 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?

  The description is well-structured with 'Args' and 'Returns' sections, each parameter is clearly described, and the entire text is concise without unnecessary details.

  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 6 parameters (2 required) and no annotations, the description covers all parameters and explains the return value (formatted string). However, it could include more detail on pagination behavior or error responses, and the output schema exists but is not summarized in the description.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description adds substantial meaning: lists example city names for origin/destination, explains flexible date formats, specifies default and max values for page/per_page, and clarifies api_key as optional.

  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 it searches for train journeys between two cities on a specific date, using the verb 'Search' and resource 'train journeys'. It distinguishes from siblings 'find_station' and 'get_train_prices' by focusing on journey search.

  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 explains when to use the tool (search for train journeys) and provides date format guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'get_train_prices' for pricing.

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

• find_stationA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It mentions returns as a formatted string with IDs and names, and that api_key is optional. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, or error behavior, which is a gap for a network call tool.

  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, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clear use case and structured Args/Returns sections. No redundant information.

  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 has only 2 parameters and an output schema exists, the description provides all necessary context: what it does, when to use it, parameter explanations, and return format. It is complete for this simple tool.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully by explaining city_name with examples (e.g., Madrid, Barcelona) and clarifying api_key's optional nature and purpose. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 explicitly states 'Search for train stations in a city and return matching options.' It uses a specific verb (Search) and resource (stations), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_train_prices and search_trains.

  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 clear context: 'Useful for checking what stations are available in a city before searching for journeys.' This explains when to use the tool, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives beyond the implied sequence.

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

• get_train_pricesA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully discloses scraping behavior, potential delays, rate limits, pagination, and the return format, giving the agent clear behavioral expectations.

  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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections but is slightly verbose. However, it efficiently front-loads the purpose and provides necessary parameter details 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 no annotations and a missing output schema, the description comprehensively covers purpose, usage, behavior, and all parameters, leaving no critical gaps 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.

  Parameters5/5

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

  Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds essential meaning to all 6 parameters, including examples for origin/destination, detailed date formats, page/per_page defaults, and api_key usage.

  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 checks actual ticket prices via web scraping with pagination, and distinguishes it from the sibling tool search_trains by noting it provides real-time price information.

  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 mentions it complements search_trains and notes stricter rate limits, providing usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or give alternatives beyond the sibling.

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