Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_chicago_property_by_addressA
  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 the burden. It discloses paid nature ($0.01 via x402), data source, and return format with scores. Does not mention side effects but appears read-only. Could be more explicit about being read-only, but adequate.

  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?

  Concise paragraph with clear structure: purpose, workflow, return details, source, and cost. Every sentence adds value, 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?

  Covers essential aspects: purpose, usage order, return fields, cost. Lacks mention of error handling or behavior when no match found, but for a simple search tool it is nearly complete. Output schema not provided so description's list of return fields is helpful.

  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 covers the single parameter 'address' with format and examples. The description adds workflow context but no new semantic details about the parameter itself. Schema coverage is 100%, so 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 resolves a street address to parcel PIN(s), using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by calling itself the 'no-PIN entry point' and referencing tools that require a PIN.

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

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  Explicitly states when to use (when you have an address but not a PIN) and directs to call this FIRST before using siblings. Names alternative tools that take the PIN as input.

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

• find_chicago_comparable_salesA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses data recency (~18 months), filtering (arm's-length, non-multi-parcel), and pricing ($0.10 per call). Does not cover rate limits or output format details beyond price range.

  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?

  Five sentences, each carrying essential information: purpose, output details, filtering, use cases, and pricing. No redundant or filler content.

  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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input format, behavioral traits, and pricing. It could elaborate on the exact output structure (e.g., fields in the comps list), but the mentioned 'low/median/high price range' provides sufficient expectational completeness.

  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 already describes the pin parameter with 100% coverage. Description adds value by specifying accepted formats (14-digit, dashed, 10-digit) and a usage hint to use another tool for address-to-PIN conversion.

  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 returns comparable sales and a lightweight valuation for Cook County/Chicago properties. It specifies the verb 'find' and distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on comps and derived valuation, not raw data.

  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 mentions use cases: valuation, investment screening, underwriting. Provides a hint to use search_chicago_property_by_address first if only an address. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions but context is clear.

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

• get_cook_county_parcelA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the cost ($0.01 per call via x402), data source (Cook County Assessor), and refresh frequency (nightly). It lists the fields returned (address, city, ZIP, etc.) without needing an output schema. It could mention that it is a read-only operation, but the description implies it and provides sufficient 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?

  The description is four sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value: purpose, returned fields, cost, source, and alternative tool guidance.

  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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all essential context: what the tool does, what it returns, when to use alternatives, cost, and data provenance. It is complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.

  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 coverage is 100% and already describes the PIN parameter in detail, including formats (14-digit, dashed, 10-digit) and a hint to use search_chicago_property_by_address for address-based lookups. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema 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 the verb 'Look up' and the resource 'single Cook County / Chicago parcel by PIN'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming get_cook_county_property_dossier as the alternative when more data is needed, and implies that search_chicago_property_by_address is for address-based lookups.

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

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  The description explicitly says to use this tool for a cheap single-property lookup and directs users to use get_cook_county_property_dossier if they need sales, permits, and assessment history. It also advises using search_chicago_property_by_address first if only a street address is available, providing clear context and exclusions.

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

• get_cook_county_property_dossierA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description fully carries the burden. It discloses cost ($0.03 per call), data sources (public records), limitations (no owner personal data), and the derivation of permit-PIN links. Provides a clear picture of behavior and constraints.

  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 dense with relevant information. Front-loaded with purpose and scope, followed by specific data contents and practical notes. No extraneous words or redundancy.

  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?

  Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what is returned (sales, deeds, permits, tax assessments) and how it's joined. Also covers cost, derivation, and privacy scope. Complete for a dossier retrieval tool.

  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 has 100% coverage, with a detailed description for the single 'pin' parameter including format examples and a usage hint. The tool description does not add new information about the parameter beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

  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?

  Description clearly states tool returns a 'full property dossier' including parcel basics, sales, deed history, permits, and tax assessments. It distinguishes from siblings by highlighting the permit-to-PIN linking that is not possible with raw open data.

  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 search_chicago_property_by_address if only a street address is available. Also lists use cases (valuation, underwriting, title research, lead enrichment) and notes that no personal data is included. Could be more explicit about when not to use, but covers key guidance.

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