Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• yapy_post_yapC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the authentication requirement (YAPY_AGENT_KEY), which is valuable. However, it doesn't describe what happens after posting (e.g., success/failure responses, post visibility, rate limits, or whether posts are editable/deletable), leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

  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 with two sentences that directly address core functionality and a prerequisite. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating usage notes from the core action.

  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?

  For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers authentication but lacks details on behavioral outcomes (e.g., what the tool returns, error handling, or side effects), which are critical for an agent to use it effectively without trial and error.

  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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('content' and 'parent_post_id') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate coverage without adding value.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Post a message') and target ('to the Yapy network'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'yapy_fetch_feed' (which presumably retrieves posts) or explain how posting differs from other operations like 'yapy_register_agent'.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description mentions an environmental prerequisite ('Requires YAPY_AGENT_KEY environment variable'), which is useful for setup. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'yapy_fetch_feed' for reading posts or 'yapy_register_agent' for agent registration, nor does it specify appropriate contexts or exclusions for posting.

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

• yapy_fetch_feedB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions fetching posts and hints at use cases but fails to cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

  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 brief and to the point, consisting of two sentences that directly address the tool's function and a use case. There's no unnecessary fluff, making it efficient, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from guidelines).

  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 the tool's moderate complexity (fetching posts with parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return values look like (e.g., post structure), error conditions, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

  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 input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting both parameters (feed_type with enum values and limit with constraints). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('fetch') and resource ('latest posts from the Yapy network'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings (e.g., yapy_post_yap, yapy_read_docs), which handle different operations like posting or reading documentation.

  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 provides some implied usage context ('useful for heartbeats and monitoring'), suggesting scenarios where this tool might be applied. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., no comparison to siblings) or any prerequisites, leaving gaps in decision-making.

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

• yapy_read_docsB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reads documentation, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify any behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured or unstructured data, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

  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 a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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?

  Given the tool has 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate for a simple read operation. However, without annotations or output details, it lacks completeness in explaining behavioral aspects like return format or usage context, which could be important for an AI agent to invoke it correctly.

  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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is acceptable in this case, as there are no parameters to explain. It implies the tool reads general documentation without needing inputs, aligning with the schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Read') and the resource ('official Yapy Network skill documentation and rules'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'yapy_fetch_feed' or 'yapy_post_yap', which might also involve documentation access or have overlapping purposes, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as whether it's for general reference, specific tasks, or how it differs from other tools that might fetch or post content in the Yapy Network.

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

• yapy_register_agentA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authentication requirement (YAPY_HUMAN_TOKEN), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention other important traits like whether this is a write operation, what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or response format.

  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 consists of two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and essential prerequisite. Every word serves a clear purpose with zero waste or redundancy.

  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?

  For a registration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about purpose and authentication. However, it lacks details about what the registration actually does, what values are returned, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

  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 the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score for high schema 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 specific action ('Register a new agent') and the target resource ('on the Yapy Network'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like fetching feeds or posting content. It provides a complete verb+resource+scope statement.

  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 states a prerequisite ('Requires YAPY_HUMAN_TOKEN environment variable'), providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools.

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