Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• query_payment_orderA
  4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The action 'query' implies read-only, but it is not explicitly stated.

  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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. No wasted words, efficient and clear.

  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?

  For a simple query tool with no output schema, the description covers parameter usage well. It lacks mention of return values or response format, but the tool's simplicity mitigates this.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining the relationship between parameters and their origin from create_payment_order. It tells when to use each set, though it does not provide format or constraints beyond the 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 tool queries payment order status, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_payment_order (creation) and query_refund_status (refund status).

  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?

  Provides clear guidance on parameter selection: prefer order_no if available, otherwise use merchant_order_no plus order_time. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like query_refund_status for when to use this tool instead.

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

• create_payment_orderA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains amount unit, merchant order uniqueness, multiple QR code display options, fallback behavior, and identifier saving for polling. This is substantial behavioral context beyond a simple 'create' statement.

  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 a single paragraph with multiple sentences, conveying needed information but lacking structure (e.g., bullet points). It is moderately concise but could be better organized.

  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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameters, and detailed post-creation behavior. It omits error handling and idempotency, but overall provides adequate context for using the tool.

  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 description coverage is 0%, but the description explains two of three parameters: amount (in yuan) and merchant_order_no (unique identifier). Notify_url is not described. This adds value beyond the schema's type constraints.

  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 'Create a cashier payment order', specifying a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like query_payment_order and refund_payment_order, which serve different purposes.

  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 detailed post-creation instructions (display QR code, fallback, save identifiers) and implies polling with query_payment_order. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings or mention prerequisites.

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

• query_refund_statusA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a query (non-destructive) and explains the meaning of return statuses (final vs. pending). This is sufficient for a read-only tool.

  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?

  Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no redundant words. Every sentence adds value.

  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?

  The tool is simple with 2 parameters and no output schema. The description covers purpose, parameter guidance, and result interpretation. It lacks mention of error cases but is otherwise complete for expected use.

  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 0%, but the description adds meaning beyond field names: it clarifies that order_no is the primary identifier and mch_refund_no is for locating partial refunds. This helps the agent understand parameter roles.

  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 action (query) and resource (refund status) using specific identifiers (order_no/orderid, mch_refund_no). It distinguishes from sibling tools like query_payment_order by focusing on refunds.

  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 practical guidance: advises using mch_refund_no for partial refunds and explains when to retry based on status values. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.

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

• refund_payment_orderA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: the asynchronous nature (accepted/processing vs final success) and uniqueness constraint. It does not detail permissions or side effects, but covers the most critical traits.

  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?

  Three concise sentences front-load the action, include critical constraints, and direct to next steps. No wasted words.

  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 output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the async refund submission process and directs to a sibling tool for confirmation. Some parameter details are missing, but overall context is sufficient.

  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?

  The description adds meaning to two of four parameters: order_no (platform identifier) and mch_refund_no (must be unique). refund_amount and reason lack any semantic enhancement beyond the schema, so partial coverage.

  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 creates a refund request using platform order_no/orderid, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like query_refund_status by noting submission is not final. The verb-resource pairing is specific.

  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?

  Explicitly advises that mch_refund_no must be unique per refund and that successful submission only means accepted/processing, directing users to call query_refund_status to confirm. This provides clear when-to-use and follow-up guidance.

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