Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_article_by_linkA
  4.1/5.0
  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 lists the returned data (title, summary, date, source, language, sentiment, optional content/entities), which gives a solid picture of behavior. It does not mention error cases or rate limits, but for a simple retrieval tool, this is acceptable.

  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 a clear purpose statement, a usage context paragraph, and a bulleted list of return fields. There is slight redundancy between 'Use this when' and 'This is useful for', but overall it is efficient and readable.

  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?

  For a 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description explains the purpose, use case, and expected return fields well. It could mention subscription requirements in the body (covered in schema), but it is otherwise complete.

  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 detailed descriptions for link, includeContent, and includeEntities. The description's mention of optional content/entities adds little beyond the schema, so it meets the high-coverage baseline.

  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 'Retrieve a specific financial news article by its URL from the Finlight database,' which clearly identifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'Use this when you have an article URL,' implying search_articles/list_sources are for different needs.

  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 when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you have an article URL' and 'This is useful for getting details about a specific article you found elsewhere.' It does not explicitly name the alternative tools or give a when-not-to-use scenario, but the context is clear.

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

• search_articlesA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well by disclosing subscription requirements for content/entities, describing the response structure, and highlighting key behavioral features like advanced query syntax and default source handling. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but the term 'search' implies a safe operation.

  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 a clear opening sentence, a concise 'Key features' bullet list, and a response overview. Every sentence earns its place, providing a strong summary without unnecessary repetition or bloat, especially given the large number of parameters.

  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 description gives a good high-level overview but lacks important details for a tool with zero required parameters—for example, the default behavior when no query is provided, or the default date range. It also does not mention how search results are ordered by default (though schema covers it). Given the complexity and absent output schema, it's adequate but has clear gaps around default 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no significant new meaning beyond the schema; it repeats filter capabilities and mentions subscription requirements, which are already documented in the schema. It adds value in summarizing the query language but does not clarify any parameters beyond what schema descriptions already provide.

  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 searches for financial news articles with sentiment analysis and optional entity tagging. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get_article_by_link retrieves specific articles, list_sources lists sources) by emphasizing its broad search, filtering, and enrichment capabilities.

  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 clear context for when to use this tool (searching with filters, sentiment, etc.), though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. It implies this is the go-to for article search rather than retrieving by link or listing sources.

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

• list_sourcesA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return metadata fields, notes that isContentAvailable requires subscription, and explains default vs non-default sources. This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond just 'list sources', though it omits minor details like pagination or authentication.

  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-loaded with the main purpose, and uses bullet points for clarity. Every sentence adds value, and it avoids redundancy with the schema or the tool name.

  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's low complexity (no params, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool returns (domain, isDefaultSource, isContentAvailable), how to use it, and its relationship to sibling tools. It is complete for its scope.

  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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds semantic context about how to interpret default sources and their relationship to search_articles, which is valuable beyond the 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 clearly states 'Get a list of all available news sources' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning as the discovery step before using search_articles, making its purpose unambiguous.

  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 explicitly says 'Use this to discover available sources before filtering with the search_articles tool' and mentions the optInSources parameter, giving clear context on when and how to use it. It does not explicitly say when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for a discovery tool.

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