Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_domain_detailsC
  2.8/5.0
  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 mentions fetching detailed information, implying a read-only operation, but fails to describe critical traits such as error handling (e.g., for invalid domains), 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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and key output, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

  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 tool's complexity (a read operation with one parameter) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error cases or response structure, nor does it provide parameter details. While concise, it omits necessary context for effective tool invocation.

  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?

  The input schema has 0% description coverage, with one undocumented parameter ('domain'). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain what 'domain' represents (e.g., format like 'example.eth', validation rules, or examples). This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the parameter poorly defined.

  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 ('Fetch') and resource ('detailed information for an ENS domain'), including the key output ('including its address'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_domain_events' (which likely focuses on events) and 'resolve_ens_name' (which might resolve names to addresses without detailed info). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings in the text, 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 like 'resolve_ens_name'. It lacks explicit instructions on use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone. This minimal guidance is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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

• get_domain_eventsC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states 'Retrieve events' but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or what happens on invalid domains. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

  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, clear sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose without redundancy.

  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 tool's complexity (retrieving events likely involves data processing), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what events are returned, their structure, or error handling. For a tool with these gaps, more context is needed to be fully usable.

  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%, and the description adds no parameter details beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'domain' but doesn't explain its format (e.g., ENS name like 'example.eth'), validation rules, or examples. With 1 parameter and low coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving 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?

  The description clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and target ('events associated with an ENS domain'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_domain_details' (which likely returns static data) and 'resolve_ens_name' (which resolves names to addresses). However, it doesn't specify what types of events (e.g., transfers, registrations) or their format, leaving some ambiguity.

  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. The description implies it's for retrieving domain events, but doesn't clarify scenarios (e.g., audit trails, activity monitoring) or prerequisites. Without context, users might not know when this is preferred over 'get_domain_details' for domain information.

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

• resolve_ens_nameA
  3.5/5.0
  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 states the basic function but does not disclose behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., for invalid names), rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it safely.

  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 is front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no wasted language, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

  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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks completeness in usage guidelines, behavioral context, and parameter details, which could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively without additional context.

  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 schema has 0% description coverage, with one parameter 'domain' undocumented. The description adds meaning by specifying that 'domain' is an 'ENS name', which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's generic 'Domain' title. However, it does not provide format details (e.g., '.eth' suffix) or examples.

  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 ('Resolve') and resource ('ENS name') with the outcome ('to its Ethereum address'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_domain_details' and 'get_domain_events' by focusing on address resolution rather than general details or event history.

  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 like 'get_domain_details' or 'get_domain_events'. It lacks context on prerequisites, such as whether the ENS name must be registered or valid, and does not mention any exclusions or specific use cases.

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