Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_glucose_readingsC
  2.9/5.0
  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 returns glucose values in mg/dL with timestamps and sources, which is useful. However, it lacks critical behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or pagination behavior (though the 'limit' parameter hints at this). The description is minimal and does not fully compensate for the absence of annotations.

  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 front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and return format. There is no wasted text, and it efficiently communicates the core functionality. However, it could be slightly improved by structuring usage guidelines or behavioral details more explicitly.

  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's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and return format but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage guidelines, and error handling. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally explain return values more thoroughly, which it does not. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

  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, providing clear details for all parameters (userId, startDate, endDate, limit). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3 when no param info is added in the description, which applies here.

  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 tool's purpose: 'Get glucose/blood sugar readings for a user within a date range.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('glucose/blood sugar readings'), and scope ('for a user within a date range'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_glucose_stats' or 'get_latest_glucose' beyond implying it returns multiple readings with timestamps.

  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 mentions date ranges and returns glucose values, but does not specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over 'get_glucose_stats' (which likely provides aggregated statistics) or 'get_latest_glucose' (which likely returns only the most recent reading). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

• get_glucose_statsA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 implies a read-only operation ('Get') and adds useful context about the purpose ('understanding glucose trends and patterns'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if parameters are omitted. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none provided).

  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 appropriately sized with two sentences: the first states the purpose and parameters, and the second adds contextual value about usage. Every sentence earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

  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's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the purpose and usage context well, but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., authentication, errors) and doesn't explain the return format (statistics structure), which is important since there's no output schema.

  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 (userId, startDate, endDate) with their types and optionality. The description adds marginal value by implying date-range filtering and user-specific statistics, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what the schema specifies.

  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 ('Get glucose statistics') and resource ('for a user within a date range'), listing the exact metrics (count, average, min, max). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_glucose_readings' and 'get_latest_glucose' by focusing on aggregated statistics rather than raw readings or latest values.

  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 clear context ('Useful for understanding glucose trends and patterns'), indicating when this tool is appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use alternatives like 'get_glucose_readings' or 'get_latest_glucose', nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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

• get_latest_glucoseA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the return format (value, unit, timestamp, source) which is helpful, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, error conditions, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description adds some behavioral context but leaves significant gaps.

  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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states the tool's function and scope, the second specifies the return format. There's no wasted language, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated immediately.

  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 simple read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal information. It explains what data is returned but doesn't cover authentication, error handling, or data freshness. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, more behavioral context would be helpful for a complete understanding.

  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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the userId parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but with only one parameter that has complete schema documentation, this is acceptable. The baseline for high schema coverage is 3, but the description's clarity about what the tool does provides good overall context.

  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 ('Get the most recent glucose/blood sugar reading'), identifies the resource ('for a user'), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying it returns only the latest reading rather than multiple readings or statistics. It explicitly mentions what data is returned (value, unit, timestamp, source).

  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 context by specifying 'most recent' reading, suggesting this tool should be used when only the latest data point is needed. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use alternatives like get_glucose_readings (for historical data) or get_glucose_stats (for aggregated metrics), leaving some ambiguity about sibling tool differentiation.

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