Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• usecase_search_movies_by_actorA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description discloses that the tool 'runs curated Cypher in read mode', which informs the agent that the operation is read-only and uses a predefined query. However, it does not elaborate on return format, permissions, or error behavior, leaving some gaps.

  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 two sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded. The second sentence adds useful context about the tool's origin and read-only nature. No filler 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?

  For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter description, and read-only behavior. The lack of an output schema is acceptable given the simple purpose, though a note about the response format would improve completeness.

  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 already provides a full description for the 'actor' parameter ('Full name of the actor'), so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. The description implicitly references the parameter but adds no additional semantic nuance.

  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 with a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('movies'), scoped by actor. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which target different domains (synthetic identity, high-risk transactions).

  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 gives a clear use case ('Find movies a given actor appeared in') but does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling tools are unrelated, so no exclusions are needed, but explicit guidance is missing.

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

• usecase_detect_synthetic_identityA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It openly states that it runs curated Cypher in read mode, communicating a read-only operation and a pre-defined query. While it does not detail output format or edge cases, this is a useful behavioral trait beyond what the schema provides.

  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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and includes a compact source/PII note. Every word adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

  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?

  For a three-parameter tool without an output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke it: it explains the purpose, the read-only mode, and the discovery-mode hint derived from the customer_id parameter. It does not describe return values, but the lack of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the tool make this acceptable.

  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 already explains limit, customer_id, and min_shared_attributes. The tool description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond the conceptual notion of 'clusters sharing PII elements,' which only loosely relates to min_shared_attributes. 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 specific action (identifies potential synthetic identities) and the method (clusters of identities sharing PII elements). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like movie search and high-risk transaction detection, which are entirely different use cases.

  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 first sentence explicitly states the tool's purpose, making it clear when to use it: when there is a need to detect synthetic identities. The note about being a use-case tool and running curated Cypher in read mode provides additional context, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions.

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

• usecase_high_risk_transactionsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explicitly says it 'runs curated Cypher in read mode', indicating a safe, read-only operation with a pre-vetted query. This provides essential safety transparency, though it omits details like return schema or potential access requirements.

  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 compact, with the core action in the first sentence and a brief, useful parenthetical about the tool's origin and read-only nature in the second. 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?

  The tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema. The description covers the purpose, filtering, and read-only behavior, providing sufficient context for an agent to select it. However, it does not specify the shape of the returned transactions, which might be inferred but is not explicitly stated.

  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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters, with customer_id and min_amount clearly documented. The description only restates the min_amount filtering capability ('optionally filtered to a minimum amount') without adding new semantic meaning, so the schema carries the weight.

  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 with a specific verb ('List'), the resource ('customer's outgoing transactions'), and the unique filter ('benefit an account in a high-risk jurisdiction'). This differentiates it from sibling use-case tools like detecting synthetic identity or searching movies.

  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 notes it is 'Useful for AML triage', providing a clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the distinct purpose and sibling names make the appropriate usage apparent.

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