Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_listing_detailsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds value by listing the returned fields. However, it does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., missing fields for some listings) or operational details beyond what annotations cover.

  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 concise sentence that front-loads the key information ('Fetch the full advertisement') and lists included attributes. No redundant or 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?

  Given the presence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool returns. It lacks details on edge cases or behavior but is sufficient for a read-only tool with well-defined parameters and return structure.

  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 both parameters having clear descriptions. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already 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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and resource 'full advertisement', listing exactly what is included (description, images, counts, age, attributes). This clearly conveys the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like 'search_listings' (which returns summaries) and 'get_seller_profile'.

  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 when full listing details are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_listings' or 'check_new_listings'. No usage exclusions or prerequisite information is provided.

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

• search_listingsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description does not add behavioral context beyond the purpose, but it is consistent with annotations.

  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 efficiently conveys core functionality without redundancy. No wasted 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?

  With 16 parameters fully documented in schema, an output schema, and sibling tools listed, the description adequately covers the tool's scope. Slightly brief for the complexity but sufficient.

  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 thorough descriptions. The description summarizes filter types but adds no new meaning 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 clearly states the tool searches second-hand listings on named platforms with specific filter types, distinguishing it from siblings like check_new_listings or list_categories.

  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?

  While the description lists filters, it does not explicitly instruct when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Usage is implied but not guided.

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

• get_seller_profileA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the description is not required to disclose these. The description adds context on returned data (trust signals) but no new behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

  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, concise sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. Front-loaded and efficient.

  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, annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. No missing behavioral or parameter details are needed.

  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 both parameters described. The description does not add extra meaning beyond 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 it looks up a seller's trust signals, listing specific items (verified bank account, identity, phone number, review score, number of reviews). It distinguishes from siblings like get_listing_details and search_listings, which deal with listings rather than seller profiles.

  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 use when needing seller trust information. Sibling tools focus on listings, so context is clear. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative recommendations.

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

• list_categoriesA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the category tree is shared between marktplaats.nl and 2dehands.be, which is useful but not extensive.

  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, well-structured sentence that communicates the purpose and key usage without extraneous 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?

  The description is sufficient for a simple browsing tool with an output schema. It explains the purpose and parameter usage completely.

  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 description covers the 'parent' parameter similarly to the input schema ('omit for top-level, pass name/id for subcategories'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no further semantic value, warranting a baseline score of 3.

  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's function: 'Browse the category tree' and specifies its purpose for search_listings filters. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_listings by focusing on category browsing.

  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 finding category names/ids for search_listings filters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives among the siblings, leaving some ambiguity.

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

• check_new_listingsA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: statelessness, cursor mechanism, paid promotions filtering, and incremental polling. No contradictions with annotations.

  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, no wasted words. The first sentence states the primary purpose, the second explains the critical usage pattern. Front-loaded and efficient.

  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 complexity (11 params, output schema), the description covers the core novel aspects (cursor/polling, paid filtering). The schema handles parameter details, output schema covers returns. Complete for the agent's needs.

  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 thorough parameter descriptions. The tool description adds overall context (polling flow) but does not significantly enhance individual parameter meaning. 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 verb 'poll' and the resource 'listings', with specific behaviors: newest first, paid promotions filtered out, and cursor-based incremental polling. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like search_listings.

  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 a clear usage pattern: store cursor and pass it as 'since' for next call. However, it does not explicitly contrast with search_listings or state when not to use this tool, though the context of sibling tools offers some guidance.

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