Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_recent_barsB
  3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description partially carries the behavioral burden: it discloses ordering, recency, and the missing-bar count. However, it does not disclose output shape, the meaning of 'window', paging/limits, side effects, or other operational behavior.

  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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main result and ordering, with no filler. The second sentence adds a meaningful caveat rather than redundant restatement.

  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?

  There are no annotations and no output schema, so the description must make the tool self-contained. It does not explain parameter semantics, the structure of returned bars, or the exact meaning of the window, leaving important invocation details unspecified.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not define the count or symbol parameters. The word 'window' might relate to count, but the description never explicitly states that count controls how many bars are returned or that symbol selects the bar series.

  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 states the resource (recent bars), the ordering (newest first), and a notable output trait (count of missing bars). It is clearly distinct from get_market_state and get_feed_health, though it lacks a direct verb such as 'retrieves'.

  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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The second sentence implies a trend-analysis caveat, but it does not describe alternatives or conditions that would select one sibling tool over another.

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

• get_feed_healthB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does clarify that this is a feed-liveness check rather than a price/data fetch. It does not disclose the output shape, whether the check is per-symbol, or runtime implications, but the core non-price health-check behavior is reasonably conveyed.

  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 short sentences with no filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded. The usage instruction is separate and actionable, so every clause earns its place.

  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?

  There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what the healthy/unhealthy result looks like, but it only vaguely suggests a boolean alive/not-alive idea. The mandatory symbol parameter is also completely unexplained, leaving an agent uncertain about how to call the tool correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema provides only a title 'Symbol' for the sole required parameter, and the description never mentions symbol at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to explain why a symbol is needed for a feed-health check and how it affects the result; it fails to do so.

  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 predicate 'Whether the alert feed itself is alive' clearly identifies the resource and the health-check operation, and it explicitly distances the tool from price retrieval. It is distinguishable from siblings such as get_recent_bars and get_market_state, though it lacks a direct imperative verb like 'check' or 'get'.

  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 sentence 'Use this before answering any question that assumes live data' is an explicit, actionable condition for invoking the tool. 'Without asking for a price' provides a boundary, but the description does not name alternative tools or broader when-not-to-use scenarios.

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

• get_market_stateB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful behavioral context: the response includes a freshness verdict and a usable_for_analysis field that must be checked before relying on the value, implying staleness is possible. This is genuinely informative, though it could also state read-only guarantees or error behavior.

  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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and a critical usage caveat included. There is no filler or redundant information.

  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?

  For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives essential freshness-checking guidance but does not explain what the market state payload actually contains or what other fields to expect. An agent can call it correctly but may not fully understand the response beyond the freshness verdict.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0% and the description only restates that the tool works 'for a symbol' without adding format, examples, or accepted value conventions. It adds no real semantic value beyond the schema's property name and type.

  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 that the tool returns the current market state for a symbol and flags an explicit freshness verdict. It identifies the resource and the nature of the result, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_recent_bars or get_feed_health.

  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?

  There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of its siblings, nor any exclusions or alternative routing. The advice to check freshness.usable_for_analysis is useful after the call but does not help an agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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