Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_service_infoA
  4.2/5.0
  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 is free and returns status, reachability, price, and payment flow information. No side effects are mentioned, but it is logically read-only.

  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?

  Single sentence, front-loaded with key info 'Free:', and uses lists to convey scope. Extremely concise with no superfluous text.

  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?

  With no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns. Could potentially detail how to interpret results, but overall sufficient.

  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 no parameters, so baseline score applies. Description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable given zero parameters.

  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?

  Description clearly states it checks the status of the L402 search endpoint, including reachability, price, and payment flow. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'search' tool by focusing on service health rather than performing searches.

  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 is to check the search service before using the search tool, but lacks explicit when-not or alternative guidance. The 'Free:' prefix hints at no cost, but no detailed usage conditions.

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

• searchA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully discloses the two-step payment protocol, the requirement for identical query on retry, and that each payment buys exactly one search. It covers the entire behavior needed to use the tool correctly.

  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 dense paragraph of about 4 sentences, front-loaded with the key feature 'No-KYC web search, paid per query'. It is clear but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for even quicker parsing.

  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?

  While the description explains the usage process well, it lacks details about the output format (beyond 'returns JSON results') and error scenarios (e.g., invalid preimage, expired invoice). Given no output schema, more information about the return structure would improve completeness.

  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 already describes both parameters (query and payment_preimage) with 100% coverage. The description adds valuable context about the two-step process, that query must be identical, and that payment_preimage is omitted on first call, enhancing understanding 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 it's a web search tool with a unique payment mechanism via Lightning (L402). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'search_service_info' which likely provides service info, not search.

  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 a step-by-step process for using the tool: first call with query to get invoice, pay, then second call with query and payment_preimage. It explicitly says to omit payment_preimage on first call and to use a wallet tool like nwc_pay_invoice. No explicit when-not-to-use, but the process is well-defined.

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