Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• call_serviceA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Description elaborates on behavioral traits beyond annotations: it details payment mechanics, HTTP 402 handling, idempotency via key, x402 interface, and demo mode. It confirms non-idempotent, external side effects, and spending money—fully consistent with annotations.

  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?

  Description is well-structured into sections (Preconditions, Behavior, x402-COMPATIBLE INTERFACE, Returns) and front-loads the core purpose. It is somewhat lengthy due to the tool's complexity, but each sentence adds value. Minor redundancy could be trimmed.

  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 no output schema, the description fully explains the return format and error states (PERMIT_MISSING, HTTP 402, payment pending). It covers all aspects: preconditions, behavior, demo mode, x402 handling, and retry logic. No gaps.

  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 documents each parameter well. The description adds context like idempotencyKey retry logic and serviceId sourcing, but does not significantly enhance per-parameter 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: 'Invoke an upstream API service through LemonCake's pay-per-call proxy.' This specific verb+resource, combined with detailed behavioral context, distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_balance, list_services, and setup.

  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?

  Description provides explicit preconditions (LEMON_CAKE_PERMIT env var, demo mode, serviceId from list_services) and behavior (spends money, external side effects). It indirectly guides when to use this tool vs alternatives by stating serviceId must come from list_services. Could be slightly more explicit about when not to use it, but is sufficient.

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

• list_servicesA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: no authentication required, demo services prepended when permit missing, error format, and output structure. No contradictions with annotations.

  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 clear purpose statement, usage direction, and detailed list of demo services. It is slightly lengthy but each sentence adds value, and bullet-like formatting aids readability.

  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?

  For a list tool with no output schema, the description includes output structure (fields), error handling, and relationship to sibling tools. It covers the demo behavior comprehensively, making it complete for an AI agent.

  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 only parameter 'limit' is fully described in the schema (type, default, min, max, description). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 'List approved API services available on the LemonCake marketplace' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like call_service by explicitly mentioning its role as a prerequisite for discovering serviceId values.

  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 explicitly advises to 'Use this BEFORE call_service to discover serviceId values and per-call USDC pricing' and explains the demo service behavior when LEMON_CAKE_PERMIT is missing. It does not explicitly say when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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

• get_service_statsA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that no authentication is required and specifies the output format, adding 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?

  Three sentences: purpose, usage guidance, return format. Front-loaded with key information, 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?

  For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains functionality, usage sequence, and return structure. Adequate for the complexity.

  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?

  No parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters.

  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 returns public usage statistics for every approved service. It uses specific verb 'Return' and resource 'usage statistics for every approved service', and distinguishes from siblings by providing ordering context.

  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?

  Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this AFTER list_services and BEFORE call_service to pick a service based on real-world traction.' This provides clear context and exclusion of alternatives.

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

• check_taxA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description adds significant context beyond annotations: it states no authentication required, details the three checks performed, and explains error handling (invalid registrationNumber returns invoice.valid = false, not an exception). This aligns with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint.

  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 with a bullet list of checks, clear sections, and no unnecessary words. It is concise yet informative.

  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?

  Despite having no output schema, the description provides a complete picture: it explains the three checks, the return object structure, error handling, and intended usage. For a complex tax compliance tool, this is highly complete.

  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 100%, so baseline is 3. However, the description adds detailed meaning: it explains how each parameter is used in the three checks and describes the return object structure (invoice and withholding fields), which goes 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 the tool's purpose: 'Run a Japanese tax compliance check on a single transaction.' It lists three specific checks and differentiates from sibling tools, as no other tax check tool exists among the siblings.

  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 explicitly states the intended use case: 'Japanese corporations that pay AI / API services' and notes that no authentication is required. It provides context for when to use it, though it could be more explicit about 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.

• setupA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Built upon annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds key behaviors: no authentication required, always succeeds, returns specific fields, and explains demo mode behavior. 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?

  The description is well-structured with a clear purpose, context on demo mode, and a list of return fields. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the main purpose.

  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?

  Without an output schema, the description includes the complete return object fields. It covers error behavior (none), authentication needs, and the demo mode vs. full mode scenario, making it fully self-contained for a setup guide.

  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?

  No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter info, but that's irrelevant here. Schema coverage is 100%.

  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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Show the LemonCake MCP first-run setup guide.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating 'Call this tool FIRST,' making its unique purpose obvious.

  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?

  Explicitly advises when to use the tool: 'Call this tool FIRST to learn what is missing and how to obtain a permit.' It explains the context of demo mode and provides guidance on what to expect based on credential status.

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

• check_balanceA
  5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description discloses demo mode behavior (canned $1.00) and live mode (queries chain, reports daily cap). It also notes that the backend does not store balance.

  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?

  Well-structured with clear sections (preconditions, usage, returns). Front-loaded with main purpose. No redundant sentences.

  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 zero-param read-only tool. Describes all relevant behaviors, return fields, and usage context. No gaps.

  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?

  No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by detailing the return fields (balanceUsdc, dailyCap, etc.), compensating for the lack of output 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 specifies the exact verb 'check' and resource 'on-chain USDC balance of the wallet that owns the configured permit.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like call_service or check_tax.

  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?

  Explicitly recommends using this tool BEFORE call_service to confirm funds and daily cap. Also outlines preconditions for demo vs. live mode, providing clear context for usage.

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