Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_klineA
  3.6/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It specifies the output format ('formatted table') and mentions a max limit ('max 1000'), which adds useful context beyond the input schema. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness, which are important for a data-fetching tool.

  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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return sections. Every sentence adds value, such as explaining defaults and constraints. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the purpose with parameter details, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded.

  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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers all parameters semantically and specifies the return format. The output schema (indicated as present) likely handles return values, so the description doesn't need to detail them further. However, it lacks context on error cases or usage scenarios, 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?

  The description adds significant semantic value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose with examples (e.g., 'e.g., 'eth', 'bsc', 'solana'' for chain, 'e.g., '1m', '5m', '15m', '1h', '4h', '12h', '1d'' for timeframe), clarifies defaults, and notes constraints like 'max 1000' for limit. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

  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: 'Fetch K-line data for a specified token on a given chain and return it as a formatted table.' This specifies the verb ('fetch'), resource ('K-line data'), and output format ('formatted table'). However, with no sibling tools mentioned, it cannot demonstrate differentiation from alternatives, preventing 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 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, prerequisites, or contextual constraints. It only lists parameters and returns, with no mention of use cases, limitations beyond defaults, or comparisons to other tools. This leaves the agent without operational context.

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