Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_game_propsA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions the tool retrieves props but omits details about return format, read-only nature, or any side effects. The event ID format hint adds minimal transparency.

  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, well-structured sentence delivers the core information without redundancy. Every word adds value, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

  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?

  The tool lacks an output schema, and the description gives no hint about the return structure or field details. For a tool that outputs props, this is a notable gap. It is minimally complete for a simple get operation but insufficient for confident use.

  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 clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond noting the eventId prefix, which is already in the schema. 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 tool retrieves player props for a single game using an event ID. It specifies the source of IDs (list_games) and the prefix format, distinguishing it from siblings like scan_props.

  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 implies using list_games first to obtain an event ID with the correct prefix, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like scan_props.

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

• scan_propsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It mentions flattening and optional filter, but lacks details on side effects, auth, rate limits, or return format beyond 'rows'. Adequate but not comprehensive.

  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 efficient sentences. Front-loaded with key purpose, no unnecessary 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 simple scan tool with 3 optional params and no output schema, description covers main behavior (all props today, flattening, optional filter). Missing explicit mention of default sport but handled in schema. Reasonably complete.

  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 descriptions for all 3 parameters. Description adds minimal value beyond schema (e.g., 'optionally filter by a single stat' matches stat param). Baseline 3 applies.

  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 it scans all player props across today's games for a sport and flattens them, with optional stat filter. Differentiates from siblings like get_game_props which targets a specific game.

  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?

  Implied usage through wording 'market-wide scan' and optional filter, but no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., get_game_props) 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.

• list_sportsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns accessibility per API key tier, indicating authorization-based filtering. No mention of side effects or destruction, but none expected for a read-only list operation.

  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?

  Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, no extraneous information.

  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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is adequate. It explains what the tool retrieves and the access information. However, it could hint at the output format (e.g., list of sport names with boolean flag).

  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?

  No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description adds meaning beyond the empty schema by specifying that the output includes sports and their accessibility by API key tier.

  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 action (list), the resource (supported sports), and additional context (access per API key tier). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_games and find_game.

  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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like list_games or get_game_props. Usage is implied by the resource (sports).

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

• find_gameA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses case-insensitive matching, partial name support, and that it only searches today's slate. It also states the return format ({ eventId }) and error handling. However, it does not mention whether multiple matches are possible or how they are handled.

  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 and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Every subsequent sentence provides useful context without redundancy. No wasted words.

  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 adequately explains the return format ({ eventId } or error). It covers matching flexibility, error conditions, and limitations (today's slate only). This is sufficient for a simple lookup 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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by explaining matching behavior (partial names, case-insensitive), but does not add new parameter-specific details 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 tool resolves a matchup description to an event ID for use with get_game_props. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings by mentioning the downstream use case and the type of input (team names vs event IDs).

  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 explicitly says 'Use this when you know the teams but not the event id,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also explains what happens if no match is found (not on today's board or out of season), but does not explicitly mention alternative tools like list_games for other lookup strategies.

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

• list_gamesA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It adds behavioral detail: 'Live games first' (ordering) and 'with player props' (inclusion of props in response). No contradictions, but could mention rate limits or pagination.

  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 with no fluff. First sentence states purpose and scope; second adds ordering and sport list. Highly efficient and front-loaded.

  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 (1 optional param, no output schema), the description covers purpose, supported sports, default behavior, and ordering. Sibling tools are distinct, and no additional information is needed for a list operation.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'sport'. The description adds default behavior ('Defaults to the in-season sport'), which is not in the schema description. This enhances understanding beyond 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 states 'List today's games with player props for a sport', clearly identifying the verb (List), resource (today's games), and scope (with player props, specific sports). It distinguishes from siblings like find_game (searches a specific game) and get_game_props (retrieves props for a game).

  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 getting a list of today's games with props, mentioning supported sports, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No direct reference to siblings 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.