Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_series_infoB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return values but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description is minimal beyond stating the purpose.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and return values. There is no wasted text, making it appropriately sized and structured.

  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 tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the purpose and return values, but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, which are important for completeness in this context.

  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%, with the parameter 'series_id' well-documented in the schema (including an example). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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 verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed metadata information about a specific BLS series', specifying what it returns (title, description, category, data availability). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_series' or 'list_series', which likely have overlapping purposes.

  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_series', 'list_series', or 'plot_series'. The description implies usage for retrieving metadata, but lacks explicit context or exclusions for sibling tools.

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

• get_seriesB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'returns time series data points with values, periods, and metadata', which gives some insight into output behavior. However, it lacks critical details such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or data freshness (e.g., update frequency). For a data-fetching tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

  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 front-loaded and efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core action and parameters, and the second describes the return value. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

  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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and output structure but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error cases, rate limits, or data sources. Without an output schema, the description should ideally explain return values more thoroughly, though it does mention 'time series data points with values, periods, and metadata'. This leaves gaps for an agent to operate effectively.

  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%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (series_id, start_year, end_year). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optional date range filtering', which aligns with the optional start_year and end_year parameters but doesn't provide additional semantics like format examples beyond 'CUUR0000SA0' or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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's purpose with specific verbs ('fetch') and resources ('BLS data series by ID'), and mentions optional date range filtering. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_series_info' (likely metadata) and 'list_series' (likely listing multiple series) by focusing on fetching time series data points. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'plot_series', which might involve visualization of the same data.

  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 by mentioning 'optional date range filtering', suggesting it's for retrieving specific series data. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_series_info' for metadata or 'plot_series' for visualization. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling tool names alone.

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

• list_seriesA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'series metadata including titles, IDs, and categories,' which adds behavioral context beyond the input schema. However, it doesn't mention other traits like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior, or potential errors, leaving gaps for a mutation-free but data-heavy tool.

  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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by return details. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the action and optional filtering, the second specifies the output. There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

  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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and output type but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format, error handling, or usage constraints. Without annotations or output schema, more context would improve completeness for effective agent use.

  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%, with both parameters ('category' and 'limit') well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optional category filtering' and 'Returns series metadata,' but doesn't provide additional semantics like format examples or usage nuances. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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's purpose: 'List available BLS data series with optional category filtering.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('BLS data series'), and scope ('with optional category filtering'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_series' or 'plot_series' by focusing on listing metadata rather than retrieving or visualizing data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_series_info', which might also involve metadata, keeping it from a perfect score.

  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 by mentioning 'optional category filtering,' suggesting it's for browsing series with potential filtering. It doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_series' or 'plot_series,' nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks detailed alternatives or when-not-to-use advice.

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

• plot_seriesA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns time series data formatted for plotting and requires no parameters, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention potential behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or error conditions. The description adds some value but lacks comprehensive behavioral context.

  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 extremely concise and well-structured in three sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the return format and usage, and the third clarifies the parameter situation. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

  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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete for basic understanding. However, for a data retrieval tool with no annotations, it could benefit from mentioning response format details, potential limitations, or error handling. The description covers the essentials but leaves some contextual gaps.

  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?

  The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description explicitly states 'No parameters needed,' which aligns perfectly with the schema. This provides clear semantic understanding beyond the schema's structural definition. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the description confirms the absence of inputs.

  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 purpose: 'Get CPI All Items (CUUR0000SA0) data formatted for plotting.' It specifies the exact resource (CPI All Items with specific identifier) and verb (get), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_series, get_series_info, and list_series by emphasizing the 'formatted for plotting' aspect and 'no parameters needed' constraint.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Returns time series data with dates and values that can be used to create charts on the client side.' It also specifies 'No parameters needed,' which differentiates it from parameter-requiring siblings. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the context of sibling tools and the specific 'plotting' focus provides clear usage guidance.

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