Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• check_statusB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, safe, or non-destructive. The user must infer from 'Show' that it is a query, but this is not explicit.

  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?

  A single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. Every word adds value: it specifies the account, the three key pieces of information, and the WhatsApp window status. No filler.

  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 zero parameters and an output schema is present, the description is complete. It lists exactly what the tool returns, which matches the output schema expectations. No additional context is necessary.

  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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed as the schema coverage is 100% (empty properties).

  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 tool shows account plan, monthly quota, and WhatsApp reply window status. It uses a specific verb 'show' and identifies the resource (pingwa account). Sibling tools are different actions, so no confusion.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It could be used to check account status before taking other actions, but the description does not provide this context or any usage conditions.

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

• upgradeA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully describes behavior: returns Stripe Checkout URL for human payment, no password needed, and returns billing-portal for existing Pro accounts. It discloses the side effect of raising quota and the interactive nature of the process.

  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, each serving a purpose: first states overall goal, second explains the Stripe URL usage, third adds the alternative case for existing Pro accounts. Very concise and well-structured.

  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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, what it returns, and edge-case behavior. No gaps identified.

  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?

  There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description is sufficient.

  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 a URL to upgrade the account to Pro, with specific handling for already Pro accounts (billing-portal URL). The verb 'upgrade' and resource 'account to Pro' are precise, and the two cases are well delineated.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage for upgrading accounts, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings are notify and check_status, which are unrelated, so no comparative context is provided.

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

• notifyA
  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 full burden. It explains image delivery behavior (caption vs text only based on 24h window), error handling (quota/auth), and return value (confirmation with message id). Some details like rate limits are omitted, but it is reasonably transparent.

  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 concise with 5-6 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then parameter details and behavior. No fluff or redundant information.

  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's simplicity (2 params, no annotations, output schema present), the description covers purpose, parameters, behavior, errors, and return value. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

  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 description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains text constraint (1-1024 chars) and image_url behavior (public https link, delivered as image with caption when window open). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 sends a WhatsApp notification to the account owner's own phone, distinguishing it from siblings check_status and upgrade. It specifies the verb 'send' and the resource 'WhatsApp notification'.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage for sending notifications but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. Given the distinct sibling tools, the purpose is clear but no direct usage advice is given.

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