Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• analyze_niche_trendsB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does add useful context: the tool looks at 'rising' or 'hot' posts to identify current problems, and it instructs the agent to compare `created_at` with `meta_context.current_server_date`. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, or mention rate limits, authentication, or response handling, leaving gaps in transparency.

  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?

  The description is three sentences and front-loads the key usage guidance. Each sentence adds value, though the list 'ideas, pain points, opportunities' is slightly repetitive. It is generally tight and well-structured, deserving a strong score, but not perfect due to minor redundancy.

  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 tool has 4 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the main purpose and a critical date-comparison instruction, but it omits details about pagination (`page_token`), result limits, and potential side effects. The output schema fills some gaps, but the description alone is not fully comprehensive for an agent to use the tool optimally.

  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?

  The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It indirectly references `subreddit_name` as the specific niche and `trend_type` as 'rising' or 'hot', but the `limit` and `page_token` parameters are not explained at all. This partial coverage leaves the agent uncertain about pagination and result size, so the score is low.

  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: to analyze niche trends for idea generation, pain point discovery, and opportunity identification. It specifies the resource (a specific niche like 'SaaS' or 'Entrepreneur') and the action (looking at rising/hot posts). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools by name, so it misses the top score.

  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 opens with 'Use this tool when...' and lists concrete scenarios (suggest ideas, find pain points, discover opportunities), providing clear guidance on when to invoke it. It also gives operational advice on how to analyze trends (look at rising/hot posts) and emphasizes comparing timestamps. It does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the context is strong.

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

• explore_reddit_discussionsB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about output fields (upvote_ratio, age_in_days) and pagination (next_page_token), which helps the agent interpret results. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as whether the operation is read-only, authentication requirements, or any side effects.

  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 purpose stated immediately. Each sentence provides actionable guidance (checking upvote_ratio, age_in_days, using next_page_token) without unnecessary fluff. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

  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 description gives some context about interpreting results and pagination, but it is insufficient for a tool with 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations. It lacks parameter explanations, does not clarify differences from sibling tools like 'extract_public_opinion', and does not specify any prerequisites or constraints. The overall guidance is incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation.

  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 for parameter meanings, but it does not. It mentions 'next_page_token' which is not an input parameter (the schema has 'page_token'), and it provides no explanations for the six input parameters. The description's guidance focuses on output interpretation rather than input semantics.

  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: 'gauge public opinion and market acceptance' via Reddit discussions. It uses a specific verb ('explore') and resource ('Reddit discussions'), but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'extract_public_opinion', which sounds similar.

  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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'STEP 2: SENTIMENT EXPLORATION' and 'Use this to gauge public opinion and market acceptance.' It gives a clear use case but does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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

• search_knowledgeA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds valuable traits: uses DuckDuckGo, targets Reddit threads, and importantly states that pagination is not supported. This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent anticipate limitations, though it does not cover rate limits or output specifics (which the output schema may handle).

  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 concise, front-loaded sentences: purpose, mechanism, limitation. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler. It is easy to scan and immediately conveys the tool's role and constraints.

  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?

  The tool has an output schema, so return values are documented elsewhere. The description adds essential behavioral context (web-search backend, pagination limitation) and workflow placement (STEP 1). It is slightly incomplete in not providing more guidance on parameter interplay, but overall it gives an AI agent enough to select and invoke the tool correctly.

  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, but it does not. None of the four parameters (query, limit, subreddit, time_filter) are explained in the context of this broad web search. The schema provides defaults/enums, but the description fails to clarify how subreddit filtering works with DuckDuckGo or how time_filter behaves in a web-search context.

  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 finds factual threads or technical explanations, using a broad web-search (DuckDuckGo) to locate Reddit threads that Reddit's own search may miss. It explicitly positions itself as 'STEP 1: FOUNDATION SEARCH,' distinguishing its role from sibling tools focused on opinions, discussions, and trends.

  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 clear context for when to use this tool: as a foundational search for facts/technical explanations, with a stated advantage over Reddit's native search. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, relying on the implied contrast with opinion/trend tools.

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

• extract_public_opinionA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: filtering out 'noise, bots, and low-effort content' to produce 'PURE human opinions.' It also states the citation requirement. While it doesn't mention error behaviors or rate limits, the disclosed filtering behavior goes well beyond a generic description.

  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, with three sentences each adding value: the first guides usage timing, the second defines the core functionality, and the third gives a binding citation rule. No filler or redundant 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?

  Given that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return fields. It sufficiently covers what the tool does, when to use it, and a key output requirement. It could have mentioned the post_url parameter explicitly, but overall the context is solid for a deep-dive tool with a clear place in the workflow.

  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?

  The schema has 0% parameter description coverage, and the description does not explicitly explain post_url or max_comments. There is an implicit clue that post_url is the URL of the found post, but max_comments is entirely unaddressed. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

  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 a specific verb+resource: 'extracts PURE human opinions' from a post, and explicitly distinguishes it from search tools by calling it a 'DEEP DIVE TOOL' meant for use after finding a relevant post. This differentiates it well from siblings like search_knowledge and explore_reddit_discussions.

  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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use this ONLY after finding a relevant post via search tools.' It also gives a clear rule for handling output ('You MUST use the comment_url for each specific quote in your final report'), which serves as a practical guideline for when and how to use the tool.

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