Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• score_funding_readinessB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool reads the Obra CTO report for technical risk and produces dashboard components. However, it does not mention side effects, performance, or what happens if inputs are missing, leaving some transparency gaps.

  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 a single sentence that packs key information, but it is somewhat dense and could benefit from structured formatting. It remains concise without superfluous content.

  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 13 parameters, many required nested objects, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lists dashboard components but does not explain how inputs map to outputs or provide usage examples, leaving significant gaps for effective use.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  Schema description coverage is only 8%, and the description adds no parameter explanations beyond hinting at the 'path' parameter via 'Reads the Obra CTO report'. With 13 parameters, many nested, the description fails to clarify their roles, severely limiting tool usability.

  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+resource structure: 'Turn your structured assessment into a stage-calibrated funding-readiness dashboard', listing dashboard components. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on scoring after assessment, while siblings 'deck_blueprint' and 'prepare_assessment' are about other phases.

  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 this tool should be used after 'prepare_assessment' by referencing that output, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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

• prepare_assessmentA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior: reads materials from local path, returns contents with rubric, and that materials stay local. It also describes the workflow in which the host model performs further assessment, ensuring transparency about the tool's role.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is moderately concise but includes some redundancy (e.g., repeating 'YOU, the host model'). It is structured with a clear first sentence stating the primary action, then explaining the workflow. It could be slightly more terse, but it remains readable and informative.

  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 absence of an output schema and the moderate complexity (3 parameters, all optional), the description is fairly complete. It explains what input to provide, what the tool returns, and how it integrates with the sibling tool score_funding_readiness. However, it does not describe the return format in detail, which is a minor gap.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'path' defaults to working directory, 'files' is an optional explicit list, and 'stage' includes examples. However, it does not significantly enhance understanding of parameter usage beyond what the schema provides.

  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 reads founder's funding materials from a local path and returns contents with a rigorous assessment rubric, distinguishing itself from sibling tools by specifying the subsequent workflow (host model assesses and calls score_funding_readiness). The verb 'prepare' is appropriate and the resource is well-defined.

  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 explains when to use the tool (to prepare a funding assessment) and mentions the subsequent step (calling score_funding_readiness). It also notes reading the Obra CTO report if present. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative scenarios, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent.

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

• deck_blueprintA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description is transparent about reading the Obra CTO report if present and the subsequent actions. No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention any side effects, but for a blueprint-generation tool, this is likely read-only. The behavior is clearly described.

  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 three sentences long and front-loads the purpose. Each sentence adds value: first sentence defines output, second gives usage context, third explains workflow. It is concise and well-structured, though slightly wordy in the first sentence.

  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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return values (slide structure, evidence bar, research prompts, artifacts). It also covers prerequisites (reading Obra) and follow-up actions (build deck, ask CFO). This is complete for a tool of this complexity.

  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% with descriptions for all three parameters (path, stage, sector). The description adds some context (path is for Obra report, stage defaults to pre-seed, sector is optional) but largely reinforces the schema. The value added is modest, earning a baseline 3.

  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 returns 'the framework for a fundable pitch deck at your stage' and details the specific outputs: slide structure, evidence bar, research prompts, and artifacts. This distinguishes it from siblings prepare_assessment and score_funding_readiness, which focus on different tasks.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly says 'Use this when you have no deck yet or a weak one.' It also provides a workflow: reads Obra CTO report, then build deck and ask CFO to rank it. This gives clear guidance on when and how to use the tool.

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