Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• decode_instructionC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it decodes into a readable format, without mentioning any caveats, required dependencies (e.g., IDL/program_id), output structure, or error behavior. This is a 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 a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. It is not verbose, but it could arguably provide a bit more specificity about the output format. Still, it earns its place with no wasted words.

  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?

  Without an output schema or annotations, the description is quite thin for a tool with four parameters. It does not explain what the decoded output looks like, how idl and program_id interact, or any limitations, leaving the agent with incomplete information for successful invocation.

  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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, including the optional idl, program_id, and instruction_index. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond this, 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.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's function: decoding transaction instructions into a readable format. It uses a specific verb 'decode' and identifies the resource ('transaction instructions'), which distinguishes it from siblings like simulate_transaction or decode_account, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as decode_account or simulate_transaction. The description only states what it does, offering no context or exclusions.

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

• pda_verifyC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., a derived address, a boolean verification result), how errors are handled, or any side effects. The description merely repeats the tool's name-level concept without adding 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?

  The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It clearly leads with the verb and resource. Despite being terse, it is appropriately concise and easy to parse.

  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?

  For a cryptographic utility with no output schema and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It fails to specify return values, seed encoding nuances, error conditions, or whether 'verify' means checking a PDA against given seeds. The absence of an output schema makes the description's silence on outputs a significant gap.

  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 schema covers all parameters with descriptions, giving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level information. The schema descriptions are minimal but structurally complete; the description does not go beyond them, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Derive and verify') and a clear resource ('Program Derived Addresses'). This distinguishes the tool from its siblings, which all perform different operations (simulate, decode, error lookup). However, it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling tool or elaborate on the 'verify' aspect, preventing a perfect score.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states the function without mentioning use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. There is no mention of alternative tools like 'decode_account' or 'simulate_transaction', so the agent receives no contextual direction.

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

• decode_accountB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core function and omits any details about side effects, network calls (e.g., fetching IDL from chain), permissions, or output format. This leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It conveys the essential purpose efficiently, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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 and annotations, the description should provide more context, but it does not mention return values, potential errors, or the optional IDL fetching behavior. It is minimally sufficient but lacks depth for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

  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 has 100% description coverage for all parameters (address, program_id, idl), so the schema already explains their meaning. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score.

  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 identifies the tool as decoding Solana account data using program IDL, specifying both the verb ('decode') and the resource ('account data'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool decode_instruction, which targets instructions rather than account data.

  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 when one needs to decode account data, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like decode_instruction or simulate_transaction. No exclusions or comparative guidance is provided.

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

• simulate_transactionB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions returning 'detailed error analysis' but does not clarify whether simulation has side effects (e.g., state changes), what the output format is, or any network/authorization requirements. This is a significant gap for a tool that potentially interacts with the Solana network.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and returns a clear output concept, earning every word's place.

  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?

  Despite the simple schema (2 params, no output schema), the description lacks important context about what 'detailed error analysis' entails, whether simulation requires a recent blockhash, or if there are any limitations. With no output schema, the description should explain the return format more thoroughly, but it remains vague, leaving the agent underinformed about behavior and edge cases.

  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%, with both rpc_url and transaction having clear descriptions in the schema itself. The description does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score 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 clearly states the verb ('Simulate'), the resource ('a Solana transaction'), and the outcome ('return detailed error analysis'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like decode_account and anchor_error_lookup by focusing on simulation rather than decoding or lookup.

  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 a usage scenario (when you need to simulate a transaction and analyze errors) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. It's a simple definition without comparative guidance.

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

• anchor_error_lookupA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool performs network calls, rate limits, auth requirements, or what happens with invalid codes. Only states the basic function.

  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?

  Single sentence, front-loaded with action and object. No wasted words.

  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?

  Despite simple schema, description is under-specified. No output schema means description should explain return format (e.g., error details, suggestions). Also no behavioral or usage nuance beyond the one-liner.

  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 covers 100% of parameters with useful descriptions (hex/decimal format, optional IDL/program ID). Description adds no extra parameter context, but baseline 3 applies as schema does the heavy lifting.

  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?

  Description uses specific verb 'look up' and specifies resource 'Anchor error codes' with outcome 'fix suggestions'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which are about simulation, decoding, and PDA verification.

  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?

  Clear context: use for Anchor error codes. No explicit alternatives or exclusions, but sibling tools are sufficiently different that the intended usage is apparent. Slight lack of explicit when-not-to-use.

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