Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_stock_listC
  2.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided. The description only mentions 'from HTTP sources' implying network dependency but fails to disclose other traits like rate limits, caching, or effects on system state. The description does not compensate for missing annotations.

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

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It front-loades the purpose but omits critical details, making it insufficiently informative.

  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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns. It does not. The tool is simple but the description fails to provide a complete picture for proper invocation.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no explanation for the 'market' enum values (sh, sz, all) or the 'limit' parameter. Without schema descriptions, the agent has no meaningful guidance on parameter usage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states 'Get stock list from HTTP sources' which identifies the resource and action but is vague. It does not specify what the list contains (e.g., symbols, names) or differentiate it clearly from siblings like 'get_stock_historical_data' or 'search_stock'.

  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 versus siblings (e.g., 'get_fund_list', 'search_stock'). There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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

• get_fund_listC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions 'from HTTP sources,' which is trivial and does not reveal side effects, rate limits, data freshness, or that it is a read-only operation. The agent lacks essential 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.

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks substance. It is not overly verbose, but it sacrifices clarity for brevity. Key information is missing, making it less effective than it could be.

  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 two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the return format, pagination (if any), or how the 'limit' parameter affects results. The agent cannot confidently invoke this tool without additional assumptions.

  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%, and the description does not mention parameters at all. The schema provides enums and defaults, but the meaning of values like 'qfii' is unexplained. The agent must infer parameter semantics solely from the schema, which is insufficient.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states 'Get fund list from HTTP sources,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling tool 'get_stock_list,' and the reference to 'HTTP sources' is vague. The schema's enum values (etf, lof, qfii, all) are not explained, making the purpose less precise.

  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?

  There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_stock' or 'get_stock_list.' Context signals show related sibling tools, but the description does not specify scenarios or criteria for selecting this tool over others.

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

• search_stockC
  2.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or what data is returned.

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

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is a single sentence, concise, but too brief to be informative. It lacks necessary details but is not 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?

  No output schema, no annotations, and the description does not explain return format, errors, or any additional context needed for a search tool with a required parameter.

  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 schema covers one parameter's description (keyword) but missing description for market. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; market enum values are not explained.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states the tool searches stock information, which is a verb+resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_stock_realtime_data or get_stock_list, and the meaning of 'HTTP sources' is unclear.

  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, no prerequisites, no exclusions provided. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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

• get_stock_historical_dataC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only adds "from HTTP sources". It omits important details like data format, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling.

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

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is very short (one sentence) and front-loaded, but it lacks substance. It is concise but at the expense of completeness.

  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 five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the data source, return format, or how parameters like adjust affect the results.

  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 description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. With 60% schema coverage, it does not compensate by explaining parameter roles or providing examples beyond what the schema already offers.

  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 and resource: "Get stock historical data". It distinguishes from real-time data but does not explicitly differentiate from search_stock, which also involves searching for stock data.

  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 versus alternatives like get_stock_realtime_data or search_stock. No when-not-to-use information is provided.

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

• get_stock_realtime_dataC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations exist, so description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'from HTTP sources,' which is trivial. Missing critical details: data freshness, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or whether it returns live vs. delayed data.

  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?

  Single sentence front-loads purpose efficiently. No extraneous words, but could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

  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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description should specify what data is returned (e.g., price, volume, timestamp) or any limits. It fails to provide this essential context, leaving the agent underinformed.

  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% (parameter 'symbol' described with example). Description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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?

  Clearly states 'Get stock real-time data,' specifying verb and resource. Sibling tools like get_stock_historical_data and search_stock indicate distinct scope, so differentiation is implied. However, it lacks specifics about market or data source, which would enhance clarity.

  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 usage guidance provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_stock for finding stocks, get_stock_historical_data for past data). No prerequisites or contexts mentioned.

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