Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• queryC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 mentions execution with JSON parameters but doesn't describe what the tool does behaviorally—whether it's read-only or mutative, what permissions are needed, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that appears to execute queries.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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?

  Given the tool has an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values) and 100% schema coverage, the description is somewhat complete. However, for a query execution tool with no annotations, it lacks critical behavioral context like safety, permissions, or error handling, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying JSON parameters are used, which is already covered in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding value.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states the tool 'Execute[s] a NIX query with JSON parameters', which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't specify what a 'NIX query' is or how it differs from the sibling tools 'get_query_abi' and 'list_queries', leaving the purpose somewhat vague and undifferentiated.

  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 the sibling tools 'get_query_abi' or 'list_queries'. There's no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or specific contexts for execution, leaving the agent with no usage direction beyond the basic purpose.

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

• get_query_abiB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose other traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the output contains beyond 'ABI structure and JSON template.' For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Get ABI structure and JSON template for a specific query.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential 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?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, 1 required), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details. The output schema likely explains return values, so the description doesn't need to detail them, but overall completeness is limited to the basic function.

  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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters (query_name, contract, include_example, environment) with details like defaults and allowed values. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

  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's purpose: 'Get ABI structure and JSON template for a specific query.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('ABI structure and JSON template'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_queries' (which lists queries) and 'query' (which likely executes queries). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings beyond the inherent action, so it's not a perfect 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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, compare to sibling tools like 'list_queries' or 'query', or specify scenarios where this tool is appropriate. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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

• list_queriesB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('List all available...') without mentioning any behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, has rate limits, or describes the return format. This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and potential complexity.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  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?

  Given that there's an output schema (which handles return values) and 100% schema coverage for parameters, the description's minimal approach is somewhat acceptable. However, for a tool with no annotations and sibling tools, it lacks context about behavioral traits and usage differentiation, making it incomplete for optimal agent guidance.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how the filter pattern works or when to override defaults. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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 action ('List all available') and resource ('NIX query actions from the contract ABI'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_query_abi' or 'query', which would be needed for a score of 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 alternatives like 'get_query_abi' or 'query'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts, leaving the agent with no usage direction beyond the basic purpose.

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