score_response_quality
Evaluate response quality across substance, specificity, hedge avoidance, and structure. Discover the weakest dimension and receive targeted advice to improve it.
Instructions
Score a response across four quality dimensions: substance, specificity, hedge avoidance, and structure.
REQUIRED INPUT FORMAT — copy this structure exactly: {"response_text":"The full text of the response you want to evaluate for quality. It should be at least 10 characters.","claims":["Optional array of explicit claims"],"evidence":["Optional array of evidence items"]}
Dimensions:
substance_score: Shannon entropy on word frequencies (lexical diversity)
specificity_score: Density of concrete, quantitative markers
hedge_density: Proportion of hedging language (lower is better)
structure_score: Presence of claim->evidence->conclusion pattern
overall_score: Weighted average (substance 0.3, specificity 0.3, 1-hedge 0.2, structure 0.2)
Returns the weakest dimension with targeted improvement advice.
Optionally pass "context" with prior iteration data for escalation and stall detection.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| claims | No | Optional explicit claims to check for | |
| context | No | Optional caller-provided context for iterative enforcement. Include prior failure counts, iteration history, and previous response data to enable escalation and stall detection. Omit for one-shot usage. | |
| evidence | No | Optional evidence items to check for | |
| response_text | Yes | The response text to evaluate (min 10 characters) |