Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• resolve_contractB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only lookup but does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what happens if the protocol/chain is unsupported. Minimal behavioral context beyond the core operation.

  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 concise summary sentence followed by a bullet list of supported protocols, chains, and argument details. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. No extraneous text; 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 moderate complexity (many protocols and chains, optional chain_id, output schema exists), the description is fairly complete. It covers the main inputs and what the tool returns (contract addresses). The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return format in detail. Some edge cases (e.g., case sensitivity of protocol names) are not addressed, but overall sufficient.

  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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by explaining both parameters: 'protocol' with multiple examples and 'chain_id' with optional usage, examples for common chains, and the effect of omission. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's basic type/title.

  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?

  Description clearly states the tool looks up canonical deployed contract addresses for Web3 protocols, with a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('contract addresses'). It lists supported protocols and chains, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like resolve_proposal or query_protocol_docs, which could clarify when to use this over others.

  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 examples of argument usage (protocol, chain_id) but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites. For an agent to decide, explicit usage scenarios or exclusions would be helpful.

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

• resolve_proposalA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses that it searches across many protocols, returns ranked results with fork info and status, and does not read full specs. No annotations provided, but description sufficiently conveys read-only search behavior.

  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?

  Well-structured with summary, details, examples, and parameter docs. Slightly lengthy but 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?

  Complete for a search tool: covers search scope, return format, parameter guidance, and connection to sibling tools. Output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Despite 0% schema coverage, description thoroughly explains both parameters: query with multiple examples and chain with valid values and usage guidance, adding significant value 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?

  Clearly states the tool finds blockchain protocol proposals by keyword, concept, or number. Distinguishes from siblings by mentioning use of returned ID with query_protocol_docs.

  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?

  Provides explicit examples and guidance on chain filter usage, including when to omit. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios but adequately covers context.

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

• list_fork_proposalsA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description adequately discloses the tool's read-only nature and scope of coverage. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but these are not expected for a listing tool. The description is transparent about what it does and does not do.

  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, starting with purpose, then unique value, scope, and parameter details. Every sentence adds value without verbosity, making it efficient and easy to parse.

  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 (single parameter, output schema present), the description is complete. It clearly explains the query type, supported forks, and parameter format. The output schema covers return values, so no further explanation is needed.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  The schema has zero descriptions for the 'fork_name' parameter. The description compensates fully by providing examples of valid fork names (e.g., 'Cancun', 'Taproot') and noting it accepts canonical and consensus-layer aliases, adding significant meaning 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 'List every proposal activated by a named blockchain fork' and emphasizes the unique value of mapping proposals to forks, distinguishing it from sibling tools like query_protocol_docs, resolve_contract, and resolve_proposal.

  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 use cases (e.g., 'What's in Cancun?') and scope (Ethereum and Bitcoin forks). While it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool names, it effectively contrasts with manual cross-referencing, giving clear context for when to invoke this tool.

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

• query_protocol_docsA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: return structure (metadata header + body), truncation at 4K chars without query, token-saving behavior with query. No contradictions or omissions.

  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 purpose first, then behavioral details, then parameter list. Slightly lengthier than necessary due to examples, but every sentence adds 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 and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers return structure and behavior under different query conditions, providing complete context for correct invocation.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds substantial meaning: example values for proposal_id ('eip-1559', 'bip-341', 'erc-20') and query ('base fee calculation', 'security') clarify expected inputs beyond basic type/required info.

  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 'Read the specification of a blockchain protocol proposal' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_fork_proposals (lists proposals) and resolve_proposal (resolves ID), making 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 Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly explains when to use the query parameter: 'with a query returns only relevant sections (saves tokens); without query returns full text truncated to 4K chars'. It also references resolve_proposal as the source of proposal_id.

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