Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• getChainsByKeywordA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: case-insensitive partial matching, Markdown return format, default limit value, and error handling for no matches. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination, but covers essential operational traits adequately.

  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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter and return sections are well-structured with bullet points, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

  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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description provides good completeness: it explains purpose, parameters, return format, and error cases. However, it doesn't detail the exact structure of the Markdown output (e.g., field order or formatting specifics), leaving minor gaps.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides detailed semantics for both parameters: 'keyword' is explained with examples and matching behavior, and 'limit' specifies optionality, default value, and purpose. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

  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 with a specific verb ('Retrieve information about blockchains') and resource ('blockchains matching a keyword'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'getChainById' which presumably retrieves by ID rather than keyword. It specifies case-insensitive partial matching and Markdown formatting.

  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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (searching by keyword/partial name) and implies usage vs. 'getChainById' (keyword vs. ID). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives beyond the sibling tool, missing explicit exclusions.

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

• getChainByIdA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 effectively describes the tool's behavior: it retrieves information, returns Markdown-formatted details or an error message if not found, and lists the specific details included (Name, Chain ID, etc.). However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits, authentication needs, or performance characteristics.

  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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clearly labeled sections for parameters and returns. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or unnecessary information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

  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 the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, parameter details, return format, and error handling. No additional information is needed for effective use.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides comprehensive parameter semantics: it names the parameter ('chain_id'), specifies its type ('integer'), gives a clear example ('1 for Ethereum Mainnet'), and explains its purpose ('unique identifier of the blockchain'). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

  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 ('Retrieve information about a blockchain') and resource ('by its chain ID'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'getChainsByKeyword' which searches by keyword rather than ID. The purpose is unambiguous and well-defined.

  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 ('by its chain ID') and implies an alternative with the sibling tool name 'getChainsByKeyword', suggesting that tool should be used for keyword-based searches. This provides clear guidance on tool selection.

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