Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• find_blocksB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description discloses meaningful analytical behavior: blocks are reported on the current impulse leg, organized by Fibonacci pullback zones, and the current price zone is identified. However, with no annotations, the description does not mention data requirements, limitations, side effects, or failure behavior.

  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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence gives the core purpose, the second explains the output behavior, and the third references the sibling tool without repeating schema details. Every sentence earns its 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?

  The output behavior is covered and an output schema exists, so return values are less critical. However, parameter meanings are unresolved and no guidance is given for choosing this tool over its siblings, so an agent would likely need to inspect analyze_structure before calling this tool correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no direct explanation of coin, limit, candles, interval, or include_candles. The reference to 'Same input options as analyze_structure' is a useful pointer but does not itself convey parameter semantics.

  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 a specific verb and concrete resources: fair value gaps, order blocks, and pullback zones. It explains what the tool reports and how those blocks are grouped, which clearly differentiates it from siblings like analyze_structure and find_liquidity_sweeps.

  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?

  There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The only comparative statement, 'Same input options as analyze_structure,' addresses input compatibility rather than tool selection, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and output description.

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

• find_liquidity_sweepsA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the detection logic (candle pushed through swing levels before closing back inside) and the result contents ('Each result names the sweeping candle and every level it took out'). This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the name and schema, though it does not cover edge cases like no-sweep results or API-specific behaviors.

  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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a precise definition of a sweep, a statement about result contents, and a pointer to sibling input compatibility. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and the core concept is front-loaded.

  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 core concept and output contents are well covered, and the presence of an output schema means return values need not be fully described. However, the tool has five unannotated parameters and no descriptions for them, and the usage guidance relies on knowing analyze_structure. It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps in parameter understanding and sibling-tool selection.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain what any of the five parameters do. 'Same input options as analyze_structure' defers to a sibling tool rather than documenting coin, limit, candles, interval, and include_candles. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema-level documentation.

  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 identifies a specific action and resource: 'Find stop-hunts' / liquidity sweeps. It also defines a sweep precisely as a structural break that pushes through prior swing levels before closing back inside, which separates it from a clean break. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tools beyond mentioning 'Same input options as analyze_structure.'

  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 definition of what constitutes a sweep implies when this tool is useful, and 'Same input options as analyze_structure' hints at compatibility with that sibling tool. But it never states explicit conditions for when to prefer find_liquidity_sweeps over analyze_structure or find_blocks, nor does it give exclusion criteria. Usage guidance is present but mostly implicit.

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

• analyze_structureA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states this is a read operation, describes what data is fetched (candles from Hyperliquid's public endpoint), what is returned, and how include_candles changes the response. It does not explicitly mention side effects or rate limits, but 'Read' plus the public endpoint implies a safe, non-destructive 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 and front-loaded: a one-sentence summary, followed by return details and input-mode guidance. Every sentence adds useful information, with no filler or repetition. Despite being longer than a minimal description, it is appropriately sized for a tool with multiple input modes and output 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?

  The description is largely complete given the output schema exists and no annotations are present. It covers the tool's purpose, output, input modes, and a key flag. The only notable gaps are the exact semantics of limit and interval, which are optional and have defaults, so an agent can still invoke the tool correctly without full understanding of those parameters.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains coin, candles, and include_candles well. However, limit and interval are not clearly defined: interval is only hinted at via 'ETH-15m data' and 'same time scale as the levels,' and limit is not mentioned at all. This leaves meaningful ambiguity for two of five parameters.

  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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Read market structure,' and enumerates exactly what is returned: trend, ChoCh/BOS breaks, swing highs/lows, potential swing levels, and impulse peak/trough. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_liquidity_sweeps and find_blocks, which target different market concepts.

  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 for when to use the tool: to read trend and structural breaks. It also explains the three input modes (coin, custom candles, or neither for a worked example) and when to set include_candles=true. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the purpose is distinct enough that an agent can select it appropriately.

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