Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_latest_price_updatesC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what happens when invalid IDs are provided. The description is purely functional without operational 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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with this level of complexity and is perfectly front-loaded with the essential information.

  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?

  For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or provide context about the Pyth Network ecosystem. The agent would need to guess about the output format and practical usage scenarios.

  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?

  With 100% schema description coverage, all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it mentions 'specific price feed IDs' which corresponds to the 'ids' parameter, but provides no additional context about parameter usage or interactions.

  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 action ('Get') and resource ('latest price updates for specific Pyth Network price feed IDs'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'get_price_feeds' or 'get_price_updates_at_time', but the focus on 'latest' and 'specific IDs' provides some implicit differentiation.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_price_feeds' or 'get_price_updates_at_time'. It mentions 'specific price feed IDs' but doesn't explain when to prefer this over other tools for similar data retrieval tasks.

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

• get_price_feedsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches and filters, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's safe (non-destructive), potential rate limits, authentication needs, or the format of returned results. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no output schema.

  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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('search and filter') and resource ('Pyth Network price feeds'), with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

  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?

  Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of feeds, metadata), behavioral traits like safety or performance, or how it differs from siblings, making it inadequate for an agent to use effectively without additional context.

  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 the schema fully documents both parameters ('query' and 'asset_type') with details like case insensitivity and allowed values. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning filtering by symbol or asset type, aligning with baseline expectations.

  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 with specific verbs ('search and filter') and resources ('Pyth Network price feeds'), and identifies filtering criteria ('by symbol or asset type'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_latest_price_updates' or 'get_price_updates_at_time', which likely return different data formats or time-specific results.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name and parameters alone.

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

• get_publisher_stake_capsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what data is retrieved ('most recent publisher stake caps data') without mentioning any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'most recent' entails (e.g., time-based or event-based). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

  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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.

  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?

  Given the complexity of retrieving network data with three parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'publisher stake caps data' entails, how the data is structured, or any behavioral aspects like latency or data freshness. Without this context, the agent lacks sufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond basic invocation.

  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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all three parameters (encoding, parsed, include_binary). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how these parameters affect the returned data. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 action ('Get') and resource ('most recent publisher stake caps data from Pyth Network'), providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (like get_latest_price_updates or get_price_feeds), which all seem to retrieve different types of Pyth Network data, so it misses full sibling distinction.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage instructions beyond the basic purpose. This lack of guidance makes it harder to choose between sibling tools effectively.

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

• get_twap_latestC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool gets TWAP data but doesn't describe what the output looks like (e.g., format, structure), error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation. The mention of 'custom time window' hints at configuration but lacks operational details.

  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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get the latest TWAP') and adds necessary context ('from Pyth Network with a custom time window'). There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

  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?

  For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or how the TWAP is calculated (e.g., over what time period 'latest' refers to). The lack of behavioral context and output information leaves significant gaps for an agent to use this tool effectively.

  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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any semantic information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain why window_seconds is limited to 1-600 or how TWAP calculation works with multiple ids). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 verb 'Get' and resource 'latest time-weighted average price (TWAP) from Pyth Network', specifying the action and data source. It mentions 'custom time window' which adds specificity, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_latest_price_updates or get_price_feeds beyond the TWAP calculation aspect.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_latest_price_updates or get_price_feeds. It mentions a 'custom time window' but doesn't explain why one would choose TWAP over other price data methods, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• get_price_updates_at_timeA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic operation without disclosing behavioral traits. It does not cover rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, pagination, or response format. The phrase 'at or after a specific timestamp' hints at temporal behavior but lacks detail on how multiple updates 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague language. It directly communicates the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration.

  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?

  For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal. It adequately states the purpose but lacks behavioral details, parameter guidance, and output information. Given the complexity and absence of structured data, it should provide more context about usage and results.

  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 the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying temporal filtering via 'publish_time'. It does not explain parameter interactions or provide additional context beyond what the schema offers.

  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 ('Get historical Pyth Network price updates') with specific temporal scope ('at or after a specific timestamp'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_latest_price_updates' (current) and 'get_twap_latest' (time-weighted). It explicitly identifies the resource (Pyth Network price updates) and verb (Get historical).

  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 usage for historical data retrieval, contrasting with 'get_latest_price_updates' for current data. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_price_feeds' or 'get_twap_latest', and does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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