Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• ebay_searchB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns clean summaries, implying a non-destructive read operation, but does not specify authentication, rate limits, or handling of empty results. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

  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 brief (two sentences) and efficiently conveys purpose and return content. Every sentence is valuable, though a slightly structured format could improve readability.

  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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description provides high-level purpose and return fields but omits explanation of advanced parameters like filter, category_ids, or marketplace. It is minimally sufficient for basic use but lacks completeness for complex queries.

  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% (6 parameters fully described), so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates the tool's purpose.

  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 'Search eBay listings' with specific output fields (price, condition, seller ratings, listing URL). It distinguishes the tool as a search function but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like ebay_get_item or ebay_price_check.

  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. The description does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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

• ebay_get_itemA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description must convey behavior. It states 'full details' but does not clarify if the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The description adds some context (example ID format) but lacks crucial behavioral disclosures.

  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, well-structured sentence with no redundant information. Every word earns its place, providing clear and concise purpose.

  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?

  No output schema exists, so the description should compensate by explaining what 'full details' includes. It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about the return structure. Adequate for a simple fetch but incomplete for comprehensive understanding.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value by providing a concrete example of the item_id format ('v1|123456789|0'), which aids correct invocation. No additional value for marketplace beyond the default mention.

  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 fetches full details for a single eBay item by ID, using the verb 'Fetch' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ebay_search (which returns multiple items) and ebay_price_check (likely price-focused).

  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 (e.g., ebay_search or ebay_price_check). It implies usage when you have a known item ID, but does not provide exclusions or context for sibling tools.

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

• ebay_price_checkA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the output (aggregated statistics and cheapest listings) but does not mention any side effects, permissions, rate limits, or limitations beyond what's in the parameter schema (e.g., max 50 listings already included). It adds some value but lacks completeness.

  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 two sentences, direct and front-loaded. It conveys essential information without unnecessary words or repetition.

  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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides good contextual understanding of the output. It could benefit from mentioning behavior on empty results or error conditions, but it is largely sufficient for an AI agent to decide when to invoke.

  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 parameters are already well-documented. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema; it focuses on the output rather than parameter details. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 action ('Search eBay and return aggregated price landscape') and specifies output details (count, min/median/max, breakdown by condition, cheapest listings). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by calling itself 'the headline tool for price research.'

  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 for price research but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It references siblings ebay_get_item and ebay_search, but doesn't explain when to choose this tool over them.

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