Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• optimize_loansC
  2.5/5.0
  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. The description only states it 'gets recommendations' without mentioning whether it is read-only, requires authentication, has side effects, or what data it consumes. The output schema exists but is not referenced.

  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?

  The description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but it fails to convey essential information. While efficient in length, it does not earn its place due to vagueness; it could be expanded to provide clarity without becoming verbose.

  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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, optional dependencies, output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what optimization entails, how inputs relate, or what outputs to expect. The description lacks sufficient context for an agent to confidently invoke the 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 100%, and the parameter descriptions in the schema are detailed (e.g., loans expects specific fields, portfolio_data references analyze_portfolio). The tool description adds no additional meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

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

  The description 'Get loan optimization recommendations' uses a verb+noun, but 'optimization recommendations' is vague and does not specify the nature of the recommendations (e.g., repayment strategies, consolidation). It does not distinguish from sibling tools like analyze_portfolio or create_financial_plan, which could also involve recommendations.

  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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as analyze_portfolio or get_credit_health, nor does it mention prerequisites or scenarios where it is appropriate.

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

• get_credit_healthC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'get', implying read-only, but omits details like whether the summary is cached, real-time, or what data it includes. Minimal transparency.

  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?

  Single sentence, no fluff. Efficient communication, but could be slightly more informative without adding length.

  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 only one optional parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks context on the summary content or structure, which would help the agent understand what to expect.

  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%, and the parameter description in the schema explains optionality. The description adds no further semantics, so baseline score of 3 applies.

  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 'get' and resource 'current credit health summary'. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like analyze_credit_report which implies more detailed analysis.

  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 vs alternatives such as analyze_credit_report. The agent must infer that this is for a quick summary without explicit instructions.

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

• analyze_credit_reportB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool analyzes a report; it omits critical behaviors like password inference, bureau auto-detection, file format handling, or error conditions. The schema parameter descriptions hint at these details, but the main description fails to surface them.

  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 sentence with no waste. However, it is extremely terse, potentially sacrificing clarity for brevity. While it is well-structured and front-loaded, the lack of context prevents a perfect score.

  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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, password inference, multiple bureaus, output schema exists), the one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain auto-detection, password handling, or supported file sources, leaving the agent with limited guidance beyond the schema.

  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 each parameter having a descriptive comment. The main description adds no parameter-specific information. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides sufficient semantic context.

  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 action ('Analyze'), the resource ('credit report'), and specifies the three supported bureaus (CIBIL, Experian, Equifax). This distinguishes it effectively from sibling tools like get_credit_health or analyze_portfolio, which target different financial functions.

  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, nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or complementary tools. The sibling tools exist but are not referenced for differentiation.

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

• analyze_portfolioB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'analyze' without disclosing behavior (e.g., read-only, side effects, authentication needs), return format, or processing 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?

  Single sentence, zero waste. Perfectly concise for the information it conveys.

  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 tool with five parameters and an output schema, the description is too brief. It lacks context on output, workflow, or prerequisites, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand invocations.

  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 tool description adds minimal context (PDF vs direct data) but does not deepen understanding beyond what the schema provides.

  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's purpose: 'Analyze investment portfolio from a CAS PDF or direct data.' It specifies the verb (analyze), resource (investment portfolio), and source options, distinguishing it from sibling tools.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when to choose PDF vs direct data. Siblings are tangentially related (credit health, loans) but no explicit differentiation.

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

• create_financial_planB
  3.3/5.0
  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 for behavioral disclosure. It only states it creates a plan, but does not discuss side effects, required permissions, or whether it modifies existing data.

  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 with no wasted words. It could benefit from additional structure to improve readability.

  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 presence of sibling tools and an output schema (not described), the description lacks context about what the output contains, prerequisites, and when to use this tool over alternatives like analyze_portfolio.

  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 schema already explains the parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'based on goals and current situation', which is redundant.

  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 action (create) and the resource (comprehensive financial plan) and identifies the inputs (goals and current situation). It differentiates from sibling tools like analyze_portfolio or get_credit_health, which are analysis-focused.

  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 context (when you want to create a plan) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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