Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• query-actionsC
  2.9/5.0
  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 states this is a query operation but doesn't mention whether it's read-only, what permissions are needed, how results are returned (e.g., pagination), rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 7 parameters.

  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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a query tool and front-loads the essential information.

  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 query tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'actions' are in the Mina blockchain context, what the return format looks like, or how to interpret results. The high schema coverage helps but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral and output 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?

  Schema description coverage is high at 86%, providing good documentation for most parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optional filters' but doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors, or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does most of the work.

  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 action ('query actions') and resource ('from the Mina blockchain'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings 'get-network-state' and 'query-events', which likely also query blockchain data but for different resources.

  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 mentions 'optional filters' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings or what specific scenarios it addresses. There's no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusion criteria.

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

• query-eventsC
  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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'query events' which implies a read operation, but doesn't specify whether this is a safe read, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('query events from the Mina blockchain') and adds a useful qualifier ('with optional filters'). There is no wasted text, making it appropriately 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 complexity of a blockchain query tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, performance, or return format, and while schema coverage is high, the lack of output details and usage context leaves gaps for an AI agent to effectively use this tool.

  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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optional filters', but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context like filter combinations or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

  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 verb 'query' and resource 'events from the Mina blockchain', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'query-actions' or 'get-network-state', which likely query different types of blockchain data, so it lacks sibling distinction.

  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 mentions 'optional filters' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'query-actions' or 'get-network-state'. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving usage context vague.

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

• get-network-stateB
  3.2/5.0
  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 states the tool retrieves network state but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the output format might be. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks behavioral details and usage context, which are important even for simple tools. This meets the minimum viable threshold but doesn't fully compensate for the missing structured data.

  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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, and since there are none, it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps, earning a high baseline score.

  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 action ('Get') and resource ('current state of the Mina network'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'query-actions' or 'query-events', which might also retrieve network-related information, 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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'query-actions' or 'query-events'. The description implies it's for retrieving the current network state, but it doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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