Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• saju_calculateA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully describes the output: pillars (with hanja), element distribution, Day Master, and zodiac animal. It also notes that input must be a solar birthdate, a key behavioral constraint. The description is transparent about what the tool returns, though it omits details like required permissions or rate limits (likely irrelevant).

  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 consists of two succinct sentences: the first states the action and input, the second lists the outputs. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure is front-loaded with the key verb and resource.

  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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return values and the critical 'solar birthdate' requirement. It lacks information about error handling or edge cases (e.g., invalid date), but for a calculation tool that's acceptable. The completeness is high for the complexity level.

  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 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It mentions output components but does not clarify parameter semantics beyond the schema. For instance, the effect of gender on 'luck-pillar direction' is noted in the schema but not reinforced in the description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 clearly states the verb 'Compute' and the resource 'Korean Four Pillars of Destiny' from a solar birthdate. It lists the outputs, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like saju_compatibility or saju_interpret, which would require an additional sentence to achieve a 5.

  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 its siblings (saju_compatibility, saju_daily, saju_interpret). It does not mention prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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

• saju_interpretA
  3.9/5.0
  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 the tool produces a full interpretation with human-readable summaries but does not mention any performance, determinism, or other behavioral traits. However, it is not misleading.

  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 sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('Full Saju interpretation') and lists components. It is somewhat lengthy but efficient for the information conveyed.

  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 lack of an output schema, the description compensates by detailing output components (Ten Gods, life stages, luck pillars, etc.) and language support. This provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what the tool returns.

  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 100%, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond the well-documented parameters (year, month, day, hour, gender, lang). Baseline 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 it performs a full Saju interpretation from a solar birthdate, listing specific components like Four Pillars, Ten Gods, hidden stems, etc. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as saju_calculate (basic pillars) and saju_compatibility (pair analysis).

  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 implies it is the comprehensive interpretation tool. While not explicitly stating when to use alternatives, the tool name and sibling names provide clear context that this is for full readings vs. calculated pillars or compatibility.

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

• saju_compatibilityA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return structure (overall score, breakdown components) but does not mention any side effects, authentication needs, or limitations. Since it is a computational tool with no destructive actions, this is adequate but 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose, output range, and breakdown components without any unnecessary 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?

  Given the complex input (two nested objects) and no output schema, the description fully explains the return value: overall score and a breakdown of four components plus each person's Day Master and zodiac. This is complete for an agent to understand what the tool provides.

  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 schema already provides descriptions for parameters (lang, person_a, person_b with full details). The description adds no new parameter-specific information beyond 'based on both people's Saju'. With high schema coverage (67%+), a baseline 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 the tool computes a two-person compatibility score from 0-100, and specifies the return includes overall score and breakdown. It distinguishes from siblings that are about individual saju calculation or daily interpretation.

  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 indicates the tool is for scoring two-person compatibility, implying use when needing compatibility between two individuals. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but context from sibling tools makes it evident.

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

• saju_dailyA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided. Description mentions output is a score (0-100) and advice, implying a read-only operation. Does not disclose details like rate limits, authentication, or side effects, but the tool's purpose is non-destructive.

  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 purpose, followed by concise input guidance. No redundant words; every sentence is necessary.

  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 three parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input source, and output type (score + advice). Could optionally mention response structure or error handling, but current level suffices for selection and use.

  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 coverage is 100% and schema descriptions are adequate. The description adds value by clarifying the origin of the day_master parameter (from saju_calculate/interpret) and listing valid Korean stems and English aliases, which aids 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?

  Title and description clearly state the tool returns a daily fortune score and advice based on Day Master and date. It is distinct from sibling tools (saju_calculate, saju_interpret, saju_compatibility) which handle calculation, interpretation, or compatibility.

  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 instructs users to obtain the Day Master from prior saju_calculate or saju_interpret calls and provides valid input formats (Korean stem or English alias). Missing explicit when-not-to-use instructions but context is clear enough.

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