Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• chat_completionA
  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 the full burden. It mentions 'advanced provider routing and parameter overrides' and that it returns a 'generated text response', but does not disclose important behaviors such as authentication requirements, rate limits, what happens on failure, or whether the request is destructive. The description is adequate but not comprehensive for an unannotated tool.

  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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds meaningful information: action, use cases, and key features.

  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?

  The description mentions returning 'the generated text response' but does not specify the exact output structure (e.g., whether it's a raw string or an object with choices). With no output schema, more detail would be helpful. It covers the main purpose and parameters adequately but lacks detail on error handling or response format.

  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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context like 'advanced provider routing and parameter overrides' which connects to the provider parameter, but does not elaborate on the semantics of individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The description adds marginal value over the 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 that it sends conversational messages to OpenRouter.ai for completion using a specified model, explicitly listing use cases like dialogue, text generation, and instruction-following. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools (get_model_info, search_models, validate_model) which are about model metadata, not generating completions.

  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 tells when to use the tool ('for dialogue, text generation, or instruction-following tasks') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. Given the sibling tools are unrelated, the guidance is clear enough but lacks explicit exclusions.

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

• get_model_infoA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, but the description adequately discloses the read-only nature and the type of information returned (pricing, limits, capabilities). However, it does not discuss rate limits or authentication requirements, which are acceptable for a simple retrieval tool without annotations.

  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 concise sentences: first states the action and resource, second provides usage guidance and output description. No wasted words.

  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?

  For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, and the description's mention of 'unique ID' mirrors the schema description. No additional semantics are added beyond what the schema provides.

  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 retrieves complete metadata for a single model by ID, distinguishing it from siblings like search_models (which likely doesn't require exact ID) and chat_completion (generates completions).

  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 advises using the tool when the model ID is known and full details are needed, but does not mention when not to use or name alternatives directly.

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

• search_modelsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It describes a query operation returning metadata, which implies non-destructive behavior, but it doesn't specify authentication, rate limits, or potential side effects. Adequate but minimal behavioral context.

  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 the main action and filtering intent. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

  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?

  With no output schema, the description at least states the return type (list of metadata objects). All 8 parameters have schema descriptions, and the description covers the core use case. Lacks mention of pagination or ordering, but the limit parameter mitigates this slightly.

  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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds high-level purpose ('filtering by various criteria') but does not introduce meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 queries the model registry with filtering, and differentiates from siblings like chat_completion (generation) and get_model_info (single model details). The phrase 'Use this to discover models' directly indicates purpose.

  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 says 'Use this to discover models suitable for specific needs.' While it doesn't list when not to use or alternatives, the sibling context provides differentiation, making usage guidance clear if not exhaustive.

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

• validate_modelA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a boolean ('true if valid, false otherwise') and the action is a read-only existence check. No contradictions or hidden behaviors.

  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 concise sentences with no extraneous information. The key information (verb, resource, when to use, return value) is front-loaded.

  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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, boolean return), the description is nearly complete. It lacks details on error states or network requirements, but these are minor for a simple existence check.

  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% for the single parameter 'model'. The description adds little beyond the schema—it restates the purpose but doesn't provide additional format or usage details. Baseline 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 specifies the verb 'Verifies' and resource 'model ID exists within OpenRouter registry', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like get_model_info (which likely returns details) and search_models (which is for searching).

  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 usage context: 'Use this for a quick check of model ID validity before making other API calls.' This tells when to use it, though it doesn't explicitly state alternatives or when not to use.

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