Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• check_domainC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided; description only states 'Check if a subdomain is available' but does not disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether it involves network calls.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  One-sentence description is concise and front-loaded with verb and resource, though could include more context without becoming verbose.

  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?

  With no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description fails to explain what 'available' means or the format of the response, leaving the agent underinformed.

  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?

  Single parameter 'subdomain' has 0% schema coverage and description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name. Schema and description both simply say 'subdomain'.

  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?

  Clearly states verb 'Check' and resource 'subdomain availability on mycrab.space', distinguishing it from siblings like buy_domain_sol (purchase) and setup_free_tunnel (tunnel setup).

  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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not indicate that it should be used before purchasing or that it has prerequisites.

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

• buy_domain_solA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the payment requirement and return values, but does not cover failure scenarios (e.g., invalid signature, domain taken) or post-payment behavior beyond success. Some gaps remain for a financial transaction 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 extremely concise: two sentences, no unnecessary words. Every part is relevant and front-loaded with the core action.

  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 no output schema, the description appropriately mentions return values (setup_token, setup_command). However, it lacks details on parameter semantics and edge cases (e.g., what happens if payment is insufficient). The overall completeness is adequate but not thorough.

  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%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly mentions that 'subdomain' is the domain name and 'tx_signature' is the payment proof, but it does not provide format, constraints, or examples. This is insufficient for clear agent invocation.

  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 (reserve permanent custom subdomain), the prerequisite (pay 0.05 SOL to a specific address on Solana mainnet), and the outputs (setup_token and setup_command). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools (check_domain, get_skill_docs, setup_free_tunnel).

  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 outlines the payment prerequisite and success outputs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., if the domain is already taken). However, sibling tools are unrelated, so the context is clear.

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

• setup_free_tunnelA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses important behaviors: live under 60 seconds, 61-minute expiration, returns a command. With no annotations, description carries full burden and covers key traits.

  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, front-loaded with key info, 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?

  Covers essential details for a zero-param tool with an output schema; could mention the nature of the command (e.g., script) but otherwise complete.

  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; baseline of 4 is appropriate as description adds no param info but none is needed.

  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 the tool returns a command to set up a free mycrab tunnel, distinguishing it from sibling tools like buy_domain_sol and check_domain.

  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?

  Provides clear context (free, auto-generated subdomain, 60-second setup, 61-minute expiry) but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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

• get_skill_docsA
  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 must convey behavior. It states 'Fetch', implying a read operation, and lists the full scope of content, providing adequate transparency without contradictions.

  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-front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and scope without extraneous information.

  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 no parameters and an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns and its scope, making it complete for agent usage.

  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?

  With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.

  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 uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and resource 'mycrab SKILL.md', clearly listing included content areas, distinguishing from siblings like domain and tunnel tools.

  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 tool has no parameters and a straightforward purpose, so usage is clear. It lacks explicit when-not or alternatives, but the simplicity compensates.

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