Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_wallet_activityA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool queries activity and returns formatted text or error messages, but lacks critical details like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, pagination, or what constitutes 'activity' versus transactions. The return format description is helpful but insufficient for full 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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by well-organized parameter and return sections. Every sentence adds value: the opening defines scope, parameter details provide crucial constraints, and return information clarifies output format. No wasted words.

  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 (querying blockchain activity), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the parameter well and describes the return format, but lacks behavioral context like rate limits, error conditions beyond generic 'error message', and differentiation from sibling tools. The return format description helps but doesn't fully compensate for missing annotations.

  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 value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It provides clear semantics for the single parameter: wallet_address must be a valid EVM-compatible address with examples and supported chains listed. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

  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 specific verb ('Query') and resource ('activity of a specified wallet address on supported EVM blockchains'). It distinguishes from sibling tools get_wallet_balance and get_wallet_transactions by focusing on 'activity' rather than balance or transactions specifically.

  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 its siblings (get_wallet_balance, get_wallet_transactions). It mentions supported EVM blockchains but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions for this activity query tool.

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

• get_wallet_transactionsA
  4.1/5.0
  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 some behavioral traits: it's a query/read operation (implied by 'query'), mentions supported blockchains and address formats, and specifies the return format. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination beyond the limit parameter.

  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 appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return sections. Every sentence adds value: the first defines scope, and subsequent lines detail parameters and output 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 and no output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, parameters, and return format. However, it could be more complete by addressing potential errors, rate limits, or how it differs from sibling tools, which would help an agent use it correctly in context.

  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 meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains wallet_address with examples for EVM and Solana chains and clarifies limit as a maximum with a default. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

  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 specific verb ('query') and resource ('transactions of a specified wallet address'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the exact data returned (transactions vs. activity or balance). It explicitly mentions supported blockchains (EVM and Solana), providing clear scope.

  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 specifying the tool queries transactions, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. siblings like get_wallet_activity or get_wallet_balance. It provides some context with supported blockchains but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions.

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

• get_wallet_balanceA
  4.3/5.0
  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 and adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses the supported blockchains (EVM and Solana), the return format (formatted table with chain, token amount, USD value), and error handling (error message on failure). However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or specific error conditions.

  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: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by structured sections for parameters and returns, with each sentence adding essential information 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 the tool's moderate complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, parameters, returns, and supported blockchains. However, it could improve by addressing authentication, rate limits, or specific error scenarios for full contextual coverage.

  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 compensates fully for the 0% schema description coverage by providing detailed semantics: it explains the wallet_address parameter with examples for EVM and Solana formats, clarifies it must be valid for the target chain, and specifies the supported chains, adding significant meaning beyond the basic 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 ('Query the balance') and resource ('a specified wallet address across supported EVM and Solana blockchains'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_wallet_activity' and 'get_wallet_transactions' which focus on different wallet data aspects.

  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 specifying the wallet address parameter and supported blockchains, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like the sibling tools, nor does it provide context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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