Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• quote_swapA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must carry full burden. It discloses that the call proves liquidity, sizes minAmountOut, and reverts on no/thin pool. However, it does not state whether the call is read-only or has side effects, nor does it discuss authentication requirements. Adequate but not comprehensive.

  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 concise sentences that front-load the purpose and include critical behavior upfront. Every word adds value; no unnecessary 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?

  The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain the return value (e.g., output amount). It fails to mention what the quote returns. Also lacks information about error messages or where to find pool info. Incomplete for a quoting tool.

  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 documents all parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as more detailed usage examples or constraints. Baseline score of 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 (quote), resource (swap via Uniswap v4 Quoter on Robinhood Chain), and specific constraints (exact-input, single-hop). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like execute_swap and rhc_info.

  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?

  Indicates it should be used to prove liquidity and size minAmountOut before executing a swap, implying it precedes execute_swap. It also warns about reversion on no/thin pools. Could explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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

• get_positionsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals return details (raw balance, uiMultiplier, real balance, appreciation %) and the behavior of omitting tokens to scan the registry. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but it is clear it is a read operation.

  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 just two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads purpose and key returns; the second provides a practical usage tip. Every sentence earns its place.

  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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values and their computation. It covers the key outputs (raw balance, multiplier, real balance, appreciation %). It could specify the structure (e.g., array of objects) but is sufficient for an agent.

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema: 'Omit `tokens` to scan the known-token registry' repeats the schema description. No additional parameter 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 reads wallet positions for Robinhood Chain stock-tokens with a specific verb 'Read' and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings (rhc_info, quote_swap, execute_swap) by focusing on positions.

  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 for reading positions but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or when to avoid it. It lacks alternative tool mentions or exclusions.

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

• rhc_infoA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses behavioral traits: whether the server can swap (signing key configured) or is read-only. This adds value beyond a simple listing.

  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?

  A single sentence that conveys all necessary information without waste. Front-loaded with key terms.

  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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers all relevant aspects: chain ID, RPC, addresses, tokens, and server mode. Complete for the tool's complexity.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  There are no parameters. The description fully explains what the tool returns, so no additional parameter meaning is needed.

  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 specific nouns: Chain, RPC, core contract addresses, known stock tokens, swap capability. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (get_positions, quote_swap, execute_swap) which handle trading operations.

  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 states what the tool provides and hints at when to use it (e.g., checking read-only status before swapping). No explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear given sibling tool names.

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

• execute_swapA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations, so description fully covers behavior: dryRun safety, amountIn cap, minAmountOut enforcement via slippageBps or explicit, Permit2 flow, output to signer, and private key requirement for actual send. Highly transparent.

  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?

  Concise and well-structured. Main action in first sentence, safety details in bullet-style paragraph. No wasted words. Front-loaded with core purpose.

  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?

  No output schema, but description explains return behavior (plan for dry run, transaction for real). Covers all key aspects: inputs, safety, requirements, and result. Complete for a complex swap tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining dryRun default and safety, amountIn cap, slippageBps default, and recipient restriction, beyond 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?

  Clearly states it executes an exact-input single-hop swap via Uniswap v4 UniversalRouter. Distinguishes from siblings (rhc_info, get_positions, quote_swap) by focusing on execution rather than info or quoting.

  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?

  Provides when to use (executing a swap) and key safety guidelines (dryRun defaults to true, amount cap, minAmountOut enforced). Implicitly suggests alternative quote_swap for quotes. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but context is sufficient.

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