Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• create_walletC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create a new wallet' but does not disclose whether this requires authentication, what happens on failure, if there are rate limits, or what the expected output is. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

  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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's action without unnecessary elaboration.

  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?

  Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral disclosure, the description is incomplete. It does not address key aspects like what a wallet is, the creation process, or potential errors, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

  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%, with the single parameter 'name' documented as 'Optional name for the wallet'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without compensation needed.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose2/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Create a new wallet' restates the tool name 'create_wallet' without adding specificity about what a wallet is or what resources it creates. It distinguishes from siblings like 'check_balance' and 'list_wallets' by implying creation vs. querying, but lacks detail about the wallet's purpose or context.

  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. It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether a user can have multiple wallets, or when to choose this over 'process_command' for wallet-related tasks. The description only states the action without context.

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

• process_commandC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'process a natural language command' but doesn't specify whether this executes commands (potentially destructive), interprets them for further action, or has other behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The description is too vague about what 'process' actually entails.

  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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter, though it could be more front-loaded with specific details about what 'process' means in this context.

  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?

  Given the complexity of processing natural language commands for blockchain operations, the description is insufficient. With no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, it doesn't provide enough context about what the tool actually does, what operations it supports, or what to expect in return. The agent would struggle to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.

  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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'command' clearly documented as 'Natural language command (e.g., "Send 0.1 ETH to 0x123...")'. The description doesn't add any meaningful information beyond what the schema already provides about parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states the tool 'Process a natural language command for Base network operations' which provides a general purpose (processing commands) and domain (Base network). However, it's vague about what specific operations it supports and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like check_balance, create_wallet, or list_wallets. It doesn't specify whether this is for executing commands or interpreting them.

  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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. There's no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or specific contexts where this tool is appropriate versus check_balance, create_wallet, or list_wallets. The agent must infer usage from the general description alone.

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

• check_balanceC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Check wallet balance' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens if the wallet doesn't exist, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

  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 at just three words ('Check wallet balance'), with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary details. This is an example of optimal brevity for a simple tool.

  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?

  Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns (e.g., balance amount, currency), error conditions, or behavioral aspects like authentication needs. For even a simple tool, more context would be helpful 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'wallet' parameter documented as 'Wallet name or address (defaults to primary wallet)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't mention parameters at all. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Check wallet balance' clearly states the verb ('Check') and resource ('wallet balance'), but it's somewhat vague about what specifically is being checked. It doesn't distinguish this tool from potential alternatives like 'get_balance' or 'view_balance', though no direct siblings exist with similar names. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

  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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While there are sibling tools like 'create_wallet' and 'list_wallets', the description doesn't mention them or explain scenarios where checking balance is appropriate versus creating or listing wallets. It's a basic statement with no contextual usage information.

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

• list_walletsB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all available wallets' implies a read-only operation that returns wallet identifiers or metadata, but it doesn't specify critical behaviors: whether it requires authentication, returns paginated results, includes deleted/inactive wallets, or has rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves in practice.

  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, efficient sentence ('List all available wallets') that front-loads the core action and resource. It wastes no words on redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by directly contributing to understanding the tool's function.

  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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context about the return format (e.g., list of wallet names, IDs, or full objects), error conditions, or integration with sibling tools. For a basic list operation, this might suffice, but it doesn't provide enough detail for confident use in complex scenarios.

  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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is given because the schema fully documents the lack of parameters, and the description doesn't need to compensate—it correctly focuses on the tool's purpose rather than unnecessary parameter explanations.

  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 'List all available wallets' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('wallets'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_wallet' (creation vs listing) and 'check_balance' (listing vs querying specific data), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'process_command' which is more ambiguous. The description is specific enough to understand the tool's function without being tautological.

  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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether wallets must exist), compare it to siblings like 'check_balance' (which might list balances rather than wallets), or specify scenarios where listing is appropriate (e.g., before selecting a wallet for another operation). The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.

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