Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• infoA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It only states it reports information, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, any authorization needs, rate limits, or potential side effects.

  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?

  A single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Report' and is concise with 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?

  The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain the return value format. It mentions what is reported but not the structure or type of the output, leaving the agent uncertain.

  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 tool has 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100%. With no parameters, the description need not add param info. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

  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 uses a specific verb 'Report' and clearly identifies the resource: server availability, version, and environment information. It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on chemical computations.

  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 context implies this tool is for server info, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use instructions.

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

• isotope_distributionA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses return values, threshold/limit behavior, grouping options, error handling (ValueError), and notes the offline deterministic database. It could mention idempotency but is thorough.

  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 concise and well-structured, front-loading the core purpose. It uses clear language and separates key points. A minor improvement would be further tightening, but it is effective.

  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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers return values, parameter behavior, and error conditions adequately. It lacks explicit output format structure but provides enough context.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about output but does not meaningfully extend parameter descriptions beyond what the schema provides. The grouping explanation is helpful but not substantial.

  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 it computes the natural isotopic pattern of a formula, specifies what is returned (peaks with mass, mz, intensity, abundance, monoisotopic and average mass), and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on isotopic distribution.

  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 does not explicitly provide usage guidelines or contrast with alternatives like molecular_weight_calculator, find_chemical_compound, or info. It implies when to use (for isotopic pattern) but lacks guidance on when not to use.

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

• find_chemical_compoundA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It details search sources, interpretation logic (auto/name/formula), canonicalization (Hill system, trailing registry annotations), error raising ('ValueError'), and even sample output fields. This is exceptionally transparent.

  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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then details search scope, parameters, and output. While slightly verbose, every sentence adds value. It could be trimmed slightly without losing meaning.

  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?

  Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains all return fields (query, interpreted_as, normalized, matches, source, license) and error behavior. Combined with 100% schema coverage for parameters, this is a complete and self-contained definition.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds valuable context beyond schema: explains formula canonicalization examples, auto direction fallback, and the meaning of 'preferred name'. This enhances agent understanding without being redundant.

  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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Look up a chemical compound by name or molecular formula.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'info', 'isotope_distribution', and 'molecular_weight_calculator' by focusing on name/formula resolution.

  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 explicitly outlines the search order (bundled database, user cache, online fallback) and the direction selection via the 'by' parameter. It implies use when identifying compounds, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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

• molecular_weight_calculatorA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description effectively discloses all key behaviors: parsing formula, looking up NIST data, returning three mass flavors, and raising ValueError for invalid inputs. It does not mention performance or side effects, but for a read-only calculator this is sufficient.

  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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and uses a bullet-like list for the mass flavors. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity, achieving high information density 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?

  Despite lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly covers input parameters, output structure (three masses, top-level weight, uncertainty, composition), and error handling. It provides all necessary context for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret results.

  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 100%, providing baseline parameter documentation. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining the three mass flavors, the role of the monoisotopic flag, uncertainty propagation, and composition reporting, thus enriching the agent's understanding of parameter interactions.

  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 it computes molecular weight (molar mass) from a chemical formula, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like isotope_distribution by focusing on bulk mass calculation rather than isotopic patterns.

  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 implies usage for molecular weight queries through the first sentence, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over siblings like find_chemical_compound or isotope_distribution. It provides clear context but lacks exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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