Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• crypto_trendingA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it lists 'most searched' coins and is a retail attention indicator, but doesn't detail any side effects, rate limits, or data freshness. The description adds modest value beyond annotations.

  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 extremely concise: two sentences plus examples. It front-loads the core function and provides immediate examples. No wasted words.

  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 simplicity, good annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the tool's value (retail attention indicator) and source (CoinGecko), and the schema handles parameter details. No missing context.

  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?

  The description says 'Takes no coin' but does not mention the required 'params' object or the 'response_format' parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain the parameter semantics, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema's built-in 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 lists the coins currently trending on CoinGecko, with examples that make the purpose immediately obvious. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on 'breadth/attention' rather than analysis, quotes, or momentum.

  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 usage context: it's a breadth/attention indicator for retail interest, takes no coin, and examples show typical queries. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like crypto_momentum or crypto_analyze, nor specify 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.

• crypto_get_quoteA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false. The description adds value by listing the specific data returned (live price, 24h change, etc.) and clarifying it is not a trading signal. No contradiction.

  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?

  Two concise sentences plus examples. Front-loaded with the main action, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

  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 the tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and the description covering the core purpose and returned data, it is largely complete. Could optionally mention default response_format, but not a gap.

  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?

  Input schema already describes both parameters with examples. The tool description adds real-world usage examples that map natural language to coin values, which aids understanding without repeating schema. Baseline 3 is elevated to 4 due to helpful examples.

  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 'Get a current price snapshot for a cryptocurrency', specifying verb, resource, and distinguishing it as informational. Sibling tools (analyze, momentum, trending) suggest this is for quick quotes, and the description reinforces that.

  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?

  Description says 'Informational (not a buy/sell signal)' and gives examples, but does not explicitly tell when to use this tool versus siblings like crypto_analyze or crypto_momentum. The context is implied but not spelled out.

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

• crypto_analyzeA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds detail on verdict scale (RISK-ON → AVOID), gauge, reasoning, and blending of momentum, trend, and market tide. No contradictions.

  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?

  Concise three-paragraph structure with clear main purpose, usage guidance, and examples. No extraneous text. Information is front-loaded.

  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 output schema exists, description adequately covers return format (verdict, gauge, reasoning) and input semantics. Complements annotations and schema without redundancy.

  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 descriptions for both parameters are complete, covering format and examples. The tool description does not add new parameter info, but examples demonstrate usage. With good schema descriptions, minimal additional value from 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?

  Description clearly states it runs a full analysis and returns a scored verdict. Identifies the resource (coin) and verb (analyze). Distinguishes from siblings by calling itself the primary tool for 'should I look at X?' questions.

  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 advises to prefer this tool for 'should I look at X?' questions. Provides example queries mapping to parameter. Does not explicitly mention when not to use siblings, but the primary tool designation implies alternatives exist.

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

• crypto_momentumA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Beyond readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description explains the score range (-100 to +100) and that recent action is weighted more heavily. This adds behavioral nuance, though it could mention error handling for invalid coins.

  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 brief, with a clear opening sentence defining the tool, followed by two illustrative examples. No extraneous content; every sentence contributes value.

  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 simplicity (one required parameter, output schema present), the description covers the core behavior, scoring methodology, and common use cases. The output schema handles return values, so missing details like pagination or errors are acceptable.

  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?

  The schema already describes the 'coin' parameter as a symbol/name/id. The description's examples (e.g., 'coin=''SOL''') reinforce this but do not add significant new semantic meaning. With schema description coverage stated as 0%, the description partially compensates but could be more detailed on input variations.

  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 'Score a coin's price momentum across 24h, 7d and 30d into one signal,' specifying a verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on a composite momentum score, unlike crypto_trending (lists trending coins) or crypto_get_quote (current price).

  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?

  Examples like 'Does solana have momentum?' and 'Is bitcoin trending up or down?' provide clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use, but the context is sufficient for typical queries.

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