Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• queryPriceByRoundC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only vaguely hints at behavior ('placeholder due to historical data limitations'), without disclosing operational traits like error handling, data sources, or limitations. It fails to add meaningful context beyond the basic purpose.

  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 brief but front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence ('placeholder due to historical data limitations') is somewhat redundant and doesn't add value, reducing efficiency. Overall, it's concise but could be more structured.

  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?

  Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a query tool. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or how it differs from siblings like 'getLatestPrice', leaving significant gaps in contextual understanding.

  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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description mentions parameters ('pair', 'round ID', 'chain') but doesn't add semantics beyond what's implied, which is acceptable given the baseline. However, the placeholder note adds minor confusion.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states the tool 'queries the price for a given pair and round ID on a specified chain', which provides a clear verb ('queries') and resource ('price'), but it's vague about the specific context (e.g., what type of price or system). The phrase 'placeholder due to historical data limitations' adds confusion rather than clarity, making the purpose less definitive.

  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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getLatestPrice' or other sibling tools. The description implies it's for historical data queries but doesn't specify scenarios or prerequisites, leaving the agent without clear usage context.

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

• getLatestPriceB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool fetches data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

  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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly, with no wasted 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?

  Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely interacts with external data sources. It doesn't explain what 'latest price' entails (e.g., timestamp, source), error cases, or how results are structured, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

  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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description mentions 'a given pair on a specified chain', which hints at expected inputs but doesn't add detailed semantics since there are no parameters to describe. This meets the baseline for tools with zero parameters.

  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 action ('fetches') and target ('latest price for a given pair on a specified chain'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'queryPriceByRound', but it's specific enough to convey the tool's function without being vague or tautological.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'queryPriceByRound' or the list tools. It implies usage for fetching latest prices but lacks explicit context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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

• listSupportedChainsB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return format ('comma-separated list') but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the list is static or dynamic. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

  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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. For a read-only list tool, this is minimally viable but could be more helpful.

  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, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it meets the baseline for no parameters. It does mention the output format ('comma-separated list'), which adds slight value beyond the schema.

  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 ('Returns') and resource ('comma-separated list of all supported blockchain networks'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'listSupportedFeeds' or 'listSupportedFeedsByChain', which also list things but with different scopes.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or compare it to siblings like 'listSupportedFeeds' or 'listSupportedFeedsByChain', leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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

• listSupportedFeedsByChainB
  3.2/5.0
  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 states the tool returns a comma-separated list, which is useful, but it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects such as error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a tool with zero 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('Returns a comma-separated list of price feed names') without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and zero parameters.

  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 has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, or output format beyond 'comma-separated list'. For a tool in a set with siblings like 'listSupportedFeeds', more context on differentiation would improve completeness.

  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, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents this fully. The description adds no parameter information, but with no parameters, the baseline is 4 as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps. It implies a blockchain network is specified, but this is not reflected in the input schema, which might be a minor oversight.

  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 a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('comma-separated list of price feed names'), and it specifies the target ('for a specified blockchain network'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'listSupportedFeeds' or 'listSupportedChains', which appears to be a related functionality.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'listSupportedFeeds' or 'listSupportedChains', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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

• listSupportedFeedsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format (Markdown list) and scope (all supported chains and feed names), which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on potential limitations like rate limits, error handling, or data freshness.

  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 core action and output format with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is complete enough for a read-only listing operation. It clearly states what is returned, though adding minor context like data source or update frequency could improve it further.

  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, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics, earning a baseline score of 4 for not introducing unnecessary complexity.

  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 ('Returns') and the resource ('a Markdown list of all supported chains and their price feed names'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'getLatestPrice' (which fetches specific prices) and 'listSupportedChains' (which likely lists only chains without feed details).

  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 when needing a comprehensive list of chains and feeds, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'listSupportedFeedsByChain' (which might filter by chain) or 'queryPriceByRound' (which queries specific data). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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