Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• statystyki_cenA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: outlier rejection via Tukey's rule on log price, the meaning of cleaned min/max, the 'odrzucone_odstajace' field, and a caution for high outlier counts. It also explains the impact of 'tylko_mieszkalne' and 'tylko_rynkowe' filters on data quality, providing a solid safety profile.

  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: a clear one-sentence purpose, a brief behavioral note, then a systematic Args list. Every sentence contributes value, and key information is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for an 8-parameter tool without redundancy.

  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 8 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers every input parameter, explains the outlier-cleaning behavior, and provides interpretation guidance via 'odrzucone_odstajace'. It also integrates with sibling 'znajdz_obszar' for bbox, making it complete for selection and correct invocation.

  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%, but the description compensates by explaining all 8 parameters in the Args section. It gives order and coordinate system for bbox, enum values for typ, date format and inclusivity for data_od/data_do, and the behavioral rationale for boolean filters. This far exceeds the schema's basic titles and types.

  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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Liczy statystyki ceny za m²' (computes per-m² price statistics) from real transactions in an area. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'znajdz_obszar' (find area) and 'wyszukaj_transakcje' (search transactions), making its purpose unambiguous.

  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 its usage context (for area-based market statistics) and references 'znajdz_obszar' for bbox input, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative comparisons are provided, so guidance is only implied.

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

• wyszukaj_transakcjeA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that transactions come from notarial deeds, uses WGS84 with bbox order (south, west, north, east), and gives detailed rationale for the filtering flags (e.g., without only_mieszkalne, garages and storage units distort price per m²). It does not mention rate limits, response sorting, or error behavior, but is fairly transparent for a read-only search.

  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?

  Front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, followed by a practical hint about finding bbox, then a well-structured Args list. Each parameter description is concise yet informative, with no filler or unnecessary repetition of schema defaults.

  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?

  With 8 parameters and no annotations, the description addresses all parameters, defaults, and filter semantics, and includes a cross-reference to znajdz_obszar as a prerequisite. Since an output schema exists, the lack of return-value details is acceptable. The description is sufficiently complete for a complex tool.

  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 has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates: every parameter (bbox, typ, rodzaj_rynku, data_od, data_do, tylko_mieszkalne, tylko_rynkowe, limit) is explained with values, defaults, and intent. For example, typ enums are expanded into 'lokale (mieszkania), budynki, dzialki' and date inclusivity is specified ('włącznie').

  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 states 'Zwraca rzeczywiste transakcje nieruchomościami (z aktów notarialnych) w danym obszarze' – a specific verb (returns), resource (transactions), and scope (area). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like znajdz_obszar and statystyki_cen by focusing on raw transaction data from notarial deeds.

  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?

  Gives explicit workflow guidance: bbox is best obtained via 'znajdz_obszar', positioning this tool in a pipeline. It also clarifies when to set only_mieszkalne=False and only_rynkowe=False to include all records. However, it does not mention alternatives or when to use statystyki_cen instead, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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

• znajdz_obszarA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

  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 discloses key behaviors: possible multiple matches ("Może zwrócić więcej niż jedno dopasowanie"), cache building on first use per level ("Pierwsze wyszukanie na danym poziomie buduje lokalny cache z danych GUGIK"), and the retry mechanism when cache isn't ready ("po prostu powtórz to samo wywołanie za kilkadziesiąt sekund"). This goes well beyond the schema.

  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: purpose, usage link, disambiguation note, then a concise Args list. Every sentence provides necessary information—no fluff. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 2 parameters and includes operational details without being verbose.

  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 has an output schema and is a search/geocoding utility, the description covers all essentials: purpose, parameter semantics, output usage, ambiguity handling, and cache behavior. It's self-contained for an agent to invoke correctly and handle edge cases.

  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%, but the description's Args section fully explains both parameters: `nazwa` with examples ("Warszawa", "Zakopane", "Zalipie") and `poziom` with enum values, default, and cache behavior. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema, making parameter usage clear.

  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 function: "Wyszukuje województwo/powiat/gminę/miasto/wieś po nazwie i zwraca jej bbox." It specifies the verb (wyszukuje), resource (administrative units), and output (bbox). It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly tying its result to `wyszukaj_transakcje`/`statystyki_cen`, making the purpose unique.

  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 usage context: "Użyj wyniku (`bbox`) jako argumentu `bbox` w `wyszukaj_transakcje`/`statystyki_cen`." It explains the tool is a prerequisite for those tools and warns about multiple matches with disambiguation guidance. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the intended use case is clear.

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