Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_categoriesC
  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 bears the full burden. It fails to disclose critical behaviors such as what happens when budget_id is null, whether the 'current month' is based on server time, or any authorization or side effects.

  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 concise sentence, but it omits essential details about the parameter and usage. Conciseness is achieved at the cost 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?

  Although an output schema exists, the description lacks necessary context about the input parameter and the meaning of 'current month'. It is insufficient for a user to confidently use the tool.

  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% and the description does not mention the budget_id parameter at all. Users are left uninformed about the purpose or effect of this optional parameter.

  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 tool returns category groups, categories, and budgeted/activity/balance for the current month, distinguishing it from siblings that return budgets, transactions, or period summaries. However, 'current month' is ambiguous without clarification.

  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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_period_summary or list_transactions. The description only states what it returns, not the context for usage.

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

• list_transactionsC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions returning raw data and date format, but does not state that it is a read-only operation, whether it lists all transactions or filters, or any side effects. The 'raw data for deep dive' hint is useful but insufficient.

  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 (2 sentences), which is concise but lacks necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the main purpose but misses parameter descriptions. Conciseness at the expense of completeness is not ideal.

  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 5 parameters with no schema descriptions and minimal description coverage. Although there is an output schema, the description is too sparse to be complete. Important context such as required filters, pagination, or limits is missing.

  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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only mentions date format for the date parameters but does not describe type, budget_id, since_date, until_date, or category_id. No parameter semantics are provided.

  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 tool returns transaction details for deep dive analysis, and the sibling tools are distinct (categories, budgets, period summary), so purpose is clear. However, it does not explicitly use a specific verb like 'list' but 'returns' is acceptable.

  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. No mention of prerequisites or context. The description does not specify that this is for getting raw data, but doesn't explain when to use it vs other tools.

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

• get_period_summaryB
  3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Without annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the output (actuals and pace indicator) and the rationale for the pace metric. However, it does not specify whether the tool is read-only, how it calculates the pace, or if it requires a budget_id for the pace calculation.

  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?

  The description is concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the main action (returns actuals and pace indicator), and provides necessary context about the pace indicator. No unnecessary words.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  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, the description partially explains the return structure but lacks specifics (e.g., format of actuals and pace, whether currency amounts or ratios). It also does not clarify how optional parameters like 'date' and 'budget_id' affect the result. Adequate but not thorough.

  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% – description does not explain any parameters. Only 'period' is implicitly described via the enum values in the schema and the field list in the description. 'date' and 'budget_id' are not mentioned at all, leaving their semantics unclear.

  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?

  Description clearly states the tool returns spending actuals for a period (daily/weekly/monthly) and a pace indicator prorated from the monthly budget. It specifies the valid period values and the purpose of the pace indicator as a substitute for nonexistent budgets. The tool is distinct from siblings which deal with categories, budgets, or transactions.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_transactions or get_categories. The description implies it aggregates spending for a period, but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate.

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

• list_budgetsA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only says 'returns a list', lacking details on side effects, authentication, or rate limits. For a simple read tool, minimal transparency is insufficient.

  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 conveying the exact function. No unnecessary 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?

  For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, this description is complete. It covers the essential purpose without needing to explain parameters or return values.

  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?

  No parameters, so baseline is 4. Description adds no param info, but schema coverage is 100% and no further elaboration 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?

  Description clearly states it returns a list of YNAB budgets, with specific verb and resource. Differentiates from sibling tools (get_categories, get_period_summary, list_transactions) by focusing on budgets.

  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?

  No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, but the use is implied for listing budgets. Does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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