Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_packA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 discloses a critical behavioral trait: it 'Reports unverified honestly when no execution receipt exists yet -- never implies a verification the receipt doesn't support.' It also enumerates the contents of the response (receipt facts, price, refund policy, buy URL), giving the agent a clear picture of what to expect. However, it does not mention potential errors, auth requirements, or side-effect behavior, which are common in detailed transparency. Still, for a get operation, the disclosed honesty about verification status is notable.

  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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Full detail for one OneShot pack by slug') before elaborating on the contents. Every clause adds value, and there is no fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

  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 tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description must explain what the tool returns. It does so comprehensively: what you get, architecture highlights, scale envelope, FAQ, receipt facts, price, refund policy, buy URL, and the verification honesty disclaimer. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret the result correctly.

  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%: the slug parameter has a clear description with an example and guidance to use sibling tools. The tool description adds little beyond 'by slug', which is redundant. Since the schema already handles parameter semantics well, 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's function: 'Full detail for one OneShot pack by slug'. It specifies the resource (OneShot pack), the scope (one pack), and the identifier (slug). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_packs (lists multiple packs) and search_packs (searches), making the purpose unambiguous.

  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 when to use this tool: when you have a specific slug and need full pack detail. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the parameter schema instructs to 'Use list_packs or search_packs to find slugs', providing clear guidance on obtaining the required slug. This is strong contextual guidance, though the tool description itself could be more explicit about alternatives.

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

• search_packsA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description takes on the full burden. It discloses that verification status is 'stated exactly as the receipt supports' and never invented, and that it does not rank or editorialize. It also lists the exact fields returned. This provides strong behavioral transparency, though it could be slightly more explicit about result ordering.

  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 composed of three sentences that front-load the purpose and then add necessary behavioral details. It is concise without being sparse, with no filler. Every sentence contributes useful information, though the second sentence is long and packed.

  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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately covers the return values by naming the fields (title, one-liner, price, verification status, receipt summary, storefront URL). It also explains verification honesty and non-editorializing behavior. It is sufficiently complete for a search tool, though it could include information about result ordering or pagination.

  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 already has 100% coverage for both parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value for the 'query' parameter by explaining it can be a stack, problem, or niche, and gives concrete examples like 'stripe billing subscription' or 'offline sync', which go beyond the schema's examples.

  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 'Search the OneShot catalog of receipt-verified agent build packs by keyword', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings (get_pack, list_packs) by framing this as a keyword-based search that returns multiple matches, while also noting it does not editorialize.

  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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to search by stack, problem, or niche. It gives examples of suitable queries. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'use list_packs to browse all' or 'use get_pack for details', so exclusions are implied rather than stated.

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

• list_packsA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses the output content (slug, title, one-liner, etc.) and the single refund-policy summary. It describes the compact format but doesn't explicitly state read-only or safe behavior, though that is implied by listing.

  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 primary purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It efficiently conveys what is returned and what to do next without waste.

  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 simple no-parameter list tool, the description is complete: it names all returned fields, indicates the compact nature, and provides a next step. It fully covers the behavioral context needed for an agent to select and invoke this 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 the input schema is empty, so there are no parameters to describe. The description adds no parameter info, but the baseline for 0 params is 4, which 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 lists the entire OneShot catalog in compact form, naming specific fields returned. It distinguishes itself from get_pack by positioning itself as an overview tool and directing users to get_pack for full detail.

  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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance (for an overview) and names get_pack as the alternative for full detail. However, it does not mention search_packs as an alternative for filtering, leaving a small gap in alternatives coverage.

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