Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• filed_search_secB
  3.3/5.0
  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 rate limits, pagination, or whether results include full text or metadata. The description only states the tool searches and finds filings, leaving key behavioral aspects unclear.

  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 two sentences with no fluff, front-loading the purpose. Every word earns its place.

  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 7 parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description adequately states the search capability but lacks details on return format, pagination (limit up to 100), and edge cases. It is minimally sufficient but not comprehensive.

  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 details all parameters. The description adds marginal value by mentioning example form types, but does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 it searches SEC EDGAR filings with specific criteria (company name, CIK, form type, industry code) and lists example forms. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like filed_search_contracts or filed_search_lobbying, which target specific filing subsets.

  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 general SEC filing search usage but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify exclusions or prerequisites, relying on context from the tool name and sibling list.

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

• filed_search_contractsA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; it lacks behavioral traits like read-only, auth needs, or rate limits.

  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?

  Two efficient sentences: purpose and outcome. No fluff.

  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?

  Adequate for a search tool, but missing guidance on how parameters combine (AND/OR), default behavior, or beyond-limit handling.

  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 100% with descriptions; description adds no additional meaning beyond summarizing the output.

  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?

  Clear verb+resource+source: 'Search federal government contracts from USASpending.gov.' Distinct from siblings like filed_search_lobbying and filed_search_sec.

  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?

  Implies usage for searching contracts, but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives compared to siblings.

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

• filed_search_lobbyingA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral transparency. It does not mention read/write nature, auth requirements, rate limits, or any limitations, leaving the agent unaware of important behavioral 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?

  The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no redundant information. 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?

  For a search tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and output types (companies, issues, spending). It could mention that it returns filings or records, but overall it is reasonably complete.

  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 clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds context about what can be found (companies, issues, spending) but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 searches federal lobbying disclosures from the Senate LDA database, with specific examples of what can be found (companies, issues, spending). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like filed_search_contracts or filed_search_sec.

  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 explains the tool's purpose but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is implied through sibling names, but no direct guidance is given.

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

• filed_company_intelA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses that the tool makes multiple API calls (up to ~15) and uses more credits, providing behavioral transparency. No annotations are present, so description carries full weight. However, it does not detail response structure or error behaviors.

  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 two sentences plus a note, front-loaded with the core purpose, then detailing scope and behavioral note. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

  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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's function well but lacks specifics on output format. The mention of 'unified intelligence report' is helpful but vague. Overall adequate for the 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%, so the description does not add significant meaning beyond schema definitions. The description loosely references the parameters but offers no additional context on formats or defaults beyond what schema already 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 it runs comprehensive intelligence gathering on a company, searching across 9 US states for business registrations, SEC filings, federal contracts, and lobbying disclosures, and returns a unified report. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual 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 for comprehensive company intel and notes higher credit cost, but does not explicitly specify when to use vs. alternatives or exclude scenarios. Sibling tool list provides context but no direct guidance.

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

• filed_get_entityA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations exist, so description must compensate. It discloses that include_federal uses additional API credits but omits authentication requirements, rate limits, or data freshness. Behavioral traits beyond parameter cost are not described.

  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?

  Two sentences efficiently convey purpose, scope, and key constraint (ID format). No redundant or 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?

  Covers main content, ID format, and optional parameter cost. Lacks explanation of response structure or any usage restrictions (e.g., need for API key). Still sufficient for a simple retrieval tool with two parameters.

  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 covers both parameters completely. Description adds value by specifying the ID format with an example and noting that include_federal incurs extra cost, which is not in 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?

  Description clearly states 'Get full details for a specific business entity' and enumerates included content (officers, agent, filing history, status). It also notes optional federal data enrichment, distinguishing it from search siblings.

  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?

  Provides important context on entity ID format and optional parameter cost, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like filed_company_intel or the search tools.

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

• filed_search_entitiesA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool returns matching companies with registration details, which provides basic output transparency, but it does not mention pagination, rate limits, or the read-only nature of the operation.

  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 sentence that immediately states the core purpose, lists supported states, and summarizes return fields. Every word is essential, with no redundancy or wasted space.

  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 description includes return details (entity type, status, formation date), which is helpful since no output schema is provided. However, it omits mention of pagination controls or the limit parameter, which are defined in the schema but not referenced in the description.

  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, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that the search is by name across states, which aligns with the name and state parameters, but does not provide additional semantic value beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

  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 searches US business entities by name across 9 specified states, which distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like filed_search_contracts or filed_search_sec that search different domains.

  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 when to use (searching for business entities by name or registered agent) and lists the supported states, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, leaving some ambiguity despite clear sibling distinctions.

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