Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• generate_payment_qrA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states 'generate' implying a creation action, but does not specify if the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific authentication. Lacks behavioral traits like whether it modifies the payment or returns a file.

  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?

  Description is concise: one sentence for purpose, then a structured 'USE THIS WHEN' list and examples. Front-loaded with purpose. Minor verbosity from examples, but they enhance clarity without being excessive.

  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?

  With no output schema, the description should explain return format (e.g., image data, URL). It does not. Also missing error conditions or prerequisites. Complete for usage scenarios but incomplete for expected 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?

  Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no additional context for 'gateway_environment' when auto-detection happens). 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?

  Clearly states it generates QR codes for payment address/URI from an existing payment. Distinguishes itself from sibling tools (create_payment_link, create_payment_onchain, etc.) which focus on payment creation or status, not QR generation.

  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 'USE THIS WHEN' section lists specific scenarios (different size/style, only address or URI, originally without QR, gateway URL) and provides example user requests. Effectively guides when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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

• get_payment_statusA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations, but description details result status codes, amounts, confirmation info, and notes exclusion of exchange rate for non-EUR fiat.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Contains useful examples and status descriptions but could be more concise. Slightly verbose.

  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?

  Adequately covers purpose, parameters, and result details including status codes. No output schema, but description provides sufficient context.

  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?

  Single parameter is well-documented in schema; description adds no extra meaning. Baseline 3 for 100% 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?

  Description clearly states it queries payment status and details by identifier, distinguishing from sibling creation tools.

  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?

  Explicitly says when to use (check payment status, get details). Missing when-not, but context is clear.

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

• create_payment_linkA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 that the customer can choose any available cryptocurrency, the result is a web_url, and includes important behavioral notes about redirect URLs (only provide if explicitly requested) and QR code inclusion. Lacks details on payment expiry, fees, or authentication, but the core behavior is 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?

  The description is concise and well-structured. Key phrases like 'USE AS DEFAULT WHEN', 'RESULT', 'EXAMPLES', and 'IMPORTANT' front-load critical information. Every sentence contributes value, and the use of all caps for emphasis is effective without being excessive.

  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, 1 required, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers purpose, usage, constraints, and examples. It explains that the response includes a web_url and optionally a QR code. However, it does not detail the exact response structure or list all fields, which would add completeness.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing usage context for 'url_ok' and 'url_ko' (only provide if user requests) and a recommendation for 'include_qr' (always true for immediate use). This enhances the semantics without repeating 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?

  The description clearly states the tool creates a payment link/URL where the customer chooses cryptocurrency. It differentiates itself from siblings like 'create_payment_onchain' by specifying it is the default for generic payment requests without a specific crypto. Examples and 'PREFERRED' label reinforce this distinct role.

  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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'USE AS DEFAULT WHEN: User requests payment without specifying crypto.' It also lists example user requests that should trigger this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it, though the sibling tool 'create_payment_onchain' implies the exclusion for cases where crypto is specified.

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

• list_currencies_catalogA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses result contents (min/max amounts, decimals, network info, features) and caveats about not showing input_currency_code to users. Lacks details on rate limits or performance, but adequate for a read-only listing tool.

  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?

  Relatively long but well-structured with sections (USE WHEN, DISPLAY RULES, etc.). Purpose is front-loaded. Each sentence adds value. Slightly verbose but justified by the need for clarity.

  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 only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all needed context: usage scenarios, display rules, result details, and network selection. Complete for a catalog listing tool.

  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 one parameter filter_by_amount described. Description adds context: 'Optional EUR amount to filter currencies that support this payment amount' and usage example. Adds value beyond the schema's own description.

  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 'Get available cryptocurrencies with optional amount filtering.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'available cryptocurrencies' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_payment_onchain by specifying that 'input_currency_code' should only be used in that tool, not shown to users.

  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 'USE WHEN' section lists two scenarios: when user asks which cryptos are available, and before onchain payment if crypto has multiple networks. Provides display rules and network selection guidance, making it clear when and how to use the tool vs alternatives.

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

• create_payment_onchainA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses critical rules (expiration display, amount precision, link display) and behavior (converts fiat to crypto). It lacks explicit mention of side effects or authentication needs, but overall is highly transparent.

  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?

  Well-structured with numbered rules and clear sections, but somewhat verbose. The critical info (expiration, amount) is front-loaded. Every sentence serves a purpose, but some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'CRITICAL' multiple times).

  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 5 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary context: parameter semantics, usage conditions, expected output (payment link), and interaction with sibling tool list_currencies_catalog. It leaves no key gaps.

  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 100%, but description adds significant value beyond schema: precision guidance for amount, network selection for cryptocurrency, exact fiat currency usage, and QR code recommendation. This ensures correct parameter 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 it creates on-chain payments for cryptocurrencies, distinguishes from siblings like create_payment_link by specifying when to use (only when crypto is mentioned), and provides specific examples like 'USDC on Ethereum Network'.

  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 'WHEN TO USE' and 'NETWORK SELECTION' sections guide the agent on criteria for invocation, when to call list_currencies_catalog, and how to ask the user for network preference, with actionable examples.

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