Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_staysA
  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 carries full burden. It discloses a key side effect: results are automatically saved as DB snapshots for later price_history. However, it omits other behavioral details such as rate limits, pagination behavior, or return format, which are important for a web-scraping 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?

  Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. The second sentence provides usage trigger and side effect. No redundancy or filler.

  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?

  No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values. It only says '숙소 목록' (accommodation list) without specifying fields like price, rating, or URL. Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, this is a significant gap for an agent to correctly present or process results.

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds no param information beyond the schema, which already richly documents region conversion, overrides, and per-site fields. The description's mention of '지역·날짜·인원' only paraphrases existing schema content.

  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 accommodation lists for a specific region/date/person count from Airbnb and Yanolja. It includes a specific verb '가져옵니다' (fetches) and a clear resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the snapshot saving that feeds into price_history.

  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?

  Explicitly states when to call: when the user mentions travel dates and region and says '숙소 찾아줘' or '어디가 싼지 알려줘'. Provides context but does not explicitly exclude alternatives like compare_prices, though sibling names imply their roles.

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

• compare_pricesA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 does disclose a key behavioral trait: normalizing both sites' display standards (total vs per-night) to per-night prices. However, it does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, any rate limits, or output format, which are important for an unannotated 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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then normalization detail. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no fluff 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?

  The tool has 8 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema. The description covers purpose, usage, and normalization, and even hints at output content (median, quartiles, by type). However, it lacks an explicit description of the return format or possible errors, which would be more critical given the absence of an output schema.

  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 88%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does not add significant param-specific semantics; it only implies 'same conditions' anchoring to region, checkin, and checkout. The undocumented maxPages parameter is not compensated by the description.

  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 compares one-night price distributions (median, quartiles, by type) between Airbnb and Yanolja under the same conditions. It explicitly distinguishes itself from individual listing searches with '개별 숙소가 아니라', which differentiates it from sibling tool search_stays.

  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 when to use the tool: when asking 'which platform is cheaper' or 'what is the market rate in this area'. It also gives a clear exclusion by noting it is not for individual listings, which helps avoid misuse. However, it does not name specific sibling tools as alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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

• list_snapshotsA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('shows') but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it disclose return format or limitations. Purpose is clear, but behavioral details are minimal.

  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, front-loaded with the core function and followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

  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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and when to use it. It implies the return structure (region, period, source dimensions) but does not explicitly outline it, which would be helpful for an agent. Still, it is sufficiently complete for a simple listing tool.

  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% (vacuously). The baseline for 0 params is 4, and while the description adds no parameter-specific semantics, none are needed.

  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 shows which region, period, and source data is accumulated in the DB. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool price_history by positioning itself as a pre-check before calling that tool.

  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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: call it before price_history to verify queryability, or when the user asks what data has been collected. This is a clear, actionable directive that also names an alternative tool.

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

• price_historyA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reads from the DB only, is fast, and requires prior snapshot collection. It also warns that without data, search_stays must be run first. However, it does not specify what happens if no data exists, leaving a minor transparency gap.

  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, front-loaded with the core function, then examples, then speed and prerequisite. Each sentence adds value without redundancy.

  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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, when to use, and prerequisite. However, it does not describe the exact return shape or behavior when no data exists, so it's slightly incomplete for a no-output-schema tool.

  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 60%, and the description adds some context (snapshot-based, region must match search_stays) but does not meaningfully explain the from/to, source, or excludeAds parameters beyond what the schema provides. The description reinforces that region must align with prior searches but adds no new parameter-level detail.

  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 reads daily median price trends from previously collected snapshots, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing it uses pre-collected data and is a read-only DB operation, and it provides example queries that clarify its function.

  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 states when to call this tool: when users ask about price changes over time. It also gives a clear prerequisite: if no data exists, run search_stays first over multiple days. This provides both positive and negative usage guidance.

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