Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• riskpilot_analyzeA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond the annotations, the description adds crucial behavioral context: 'Changes only a local simulated ledger' and 'Never places a Binance order.' It also discloses that the 'Agent OS source remains unavailable until its bridge is bound locally,' which is a significant operational constraint. These statements meaningfully expand on readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false.

  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?

  Every sentence carries distinct information: core purpose, side effects, safety boundary, and availability constraint. The description is compact, front-loaded with the main capability, and contains no redundant phrasing.

  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?

  Despite having nested objects, six parameters, multiple enums, and no output schema, the description does not explain how to construct a proposal, what scenario values mean, or what the tool returns. The only schema-level guidance is the request_id description about idempotency. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently call the tool.

  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 only 17%, so the tool description must compensate, but it does not explain most parameters. It clarifies the source enum slightly by noting agent_os unavailability, but prompt, proposal, scenario, symbol, and their relationships remain largely unexplained. The main description gives high-level intent but not enough field-level semantics for correct invocation.

  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 a multi-step purpose: fetching a market snapshot, proposing or validating a structured trade, enforcing guardrails, and recording a paper fill. It also distinguishes itself from live trading by explicitly saying 'Never places a Binance order,' and the contrast with sibling tools riskpilot_policy and riskpilot_audit is evident from the focus on analysis and paper execution.

  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 this is the tool for market analysis, trade proposal/validation, and paper-fill recording, and 'Never places a Binance order' signals it is not for live trading. However, it never explicitly tells the agent when to choose this over riskpilot_policy or riskpilot_audit, and gives no disqualifying conditions beyond the agent_os source being unavailable until locally bound.

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

• riskpilot_auditA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful context about the data being 'local hash-linked' and 'paper data only', but the meaning of 'paper data' is unclear, and it does not disclose anything about verification semantics or output behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

  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 short sentences with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a meaningful scope qualifier. Every word earns its place, apart from minor ambiguity in 'paper data'.

  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?

  For a parameterless, read-only tool with supportive annotations, the description is largely complete: it states what the tool operates on and its scope. The lack of an output schema means return values are not specified, but the simplicity of the tool and the strong annotations reduce the need for that detail. The main gap is the undefined 'paper data' term and lack of guidance on output shape.

  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?

  There are zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100% vacuously, so the description has no burden to explain parameter details. The baseline of 4 applies here because there is nothing parameter-related that needs clarification.

  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 uses the specific verb phrase 'Read and verify' with a clear resource, 'all local hash-linked audit events', which distinguishes it from the sibling tools dealing with policy and analysis. The scope is well-defined, though the phrase 'Contains paper data only' is ambiguous and may confuse an agent about what 'paper data' refers to.

  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 that this tool is for reading and verifying local hash-linked audit events, which makes its intended use apparent relative to the sibling tools. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the domain is specific enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage.

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

• riskpilot_policyA
  3.9/5.0
  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 useful context with 'immutable' and 'paper-only execution boundary,' reinforcing that this tool only reads policy and does not affect live execution. This is consistent with the 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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and includes only informative phrases. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

  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?

  For a parameterless read-only tool with strong annotations, the description adequately identifies what is returned at a high level: risk limits and the execution boundary. It does not describe the exact output structure, and no output schema exists, but the scope is clear enough for correct invocation.

  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?

  The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to document parameter behavior. The baseline of 4 applies because there is no parameter burden to compensate for.

  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 opens with a specific verb ('Read') and identifies two concrete resources: immutable risk limits and the paper-only execution boundary. This clearly distinguishes the tool as a policy accessor compared to the sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name those siblings or the conditions for choosing among them.

  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?

  There is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance or mention of alternatives. The phrasing implies this is the tool for reading risk policy data, but an agent receives no direct rule for choosing between riskpilot_policy and the siblings riskpilot_analyze or riskpilot_audit.

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