Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• chaingpt_get_chat_historyB
  3/5.0
  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. It mentions default behavior and parameter effects, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or pagination details. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic parameter descriptions.

  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 moderately structured with purpose statement, usage notes, and parameter documentation. However, it contains redundant information (parameter details are duplicated from schema) and could be more front-loaded. The Returns section is tautological and adds no value. Some sentences don't earn their place, particularly the repetitive parameter documentation.

  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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers basic functionality but lacks critical context about authentication, error handling, rate limits, response format, and when to use vs. siblings. For a data retrieval tool with multiple parameters and no structured safety/behavior annotations, this leaves too many unknowns for effective tool selection and invocation.

  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 parameters thoroughly. The description repeats parameter information in the Args section but adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema. It does clarify the conditional behavior of sdkUniqueId (retrieving all chat blobs if not provided), which provides some additional context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does most of the work.

  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 the chat history for a given chat blob id until the limit is reached.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('chat history'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'chaingpt_invoke_chat' by focusing on retrieval rather than interaction. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'chaingpt_get_ai_crypto_news' beyond the resource type.

  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 usage context: it mentions default behavior (retrieving history associated with your API key) and when to use sdkUniqueId. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'chaingpt_invoke_chat' or 'chaingpt_get_ai_crypto_news', and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

• chaingpt_invoke_chatA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 effectively adds valuable context: it warns about potential costs ('⚠️ COST WARNING: This tool makes an API call to ChainGPT which may incur costs'), describes the AI's training data and capabilities, and mentions that it can maintain conversation context. However, it doesn't cover rate limits, error handling, or authentication requirements.

  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 front-loaded with the core purpose, but contains redundant sections (e.g., repeating 'This tool allows you to interact with ChainGPT's conversational AI capabilities' after already stating the purpose). The capabilities list and Web3 context are useful but could be more tightly integrated. Some sentences don't earn their place in terms of direct tool invocation guidance.

  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 no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description does a fair job. It covers purpose, some behavioral context (cost warning, capabilities), and parameter semantics. However, it lacks details on response format, error cases, and doesn't fully address the schema discrepancy with 'sdkUniqueId.' For a chat tool with cost implications, more completeness would be beneficial.

  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%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for both parameters: 'question' is described as 'The question or message to send to ChainGPT,' and 'chatHistory' is explained with its optional nature, default value ('off'), and purpose ('to maintain conversation context'). However, it mentions an 'sdkUniqueId' parameter in the Args section that isn't in the input schema, creating some confusion.

  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: 'Invoke a chat with ChainGPT AI and get a response based on the provided question.' It specifies the verb ('invoke a chat') and resource ('ChainGPT AI'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'chaingpt_get_chat_history' beyond mentioning 'conversational AI capabilities.'

  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 implied usage context by stating it's 'ideal for use cases like customer support, on-chain analytics, trading assistance, and community engagement' and mentioning its 'Web3-native' focus. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'chaingpt_get_ai_crypto_news' or 'chaingpt_get_chat_history,' nor does it provide clear exclusions.

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

• chaingpt_get_ai_crypto_newsA
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: real-time scanning of multiple sources, summarization capabilities, default return of 10 articles, and importantly includes a cost warning about API credits. It also mentions pagination through offset and date filtering. The main gap is lack of explicit rate limits or error handling details.

  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 somewhat repetitive (e.g., capabilities section repeats earlier points) and could be more front-loaded. While it contains valuable information, it includes redundant statements about sourcing/filtering and has some formatting issues. However, most content is relevant and the structure with clear sections (Capabilities, ⚠️ COST WARNING, Args, Returns) helps organization.

  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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description does well to cover purpose, usage, parameters, and behavioral aspects including costs. The main gap is the vague Returns statement ('The response from ChainGPT AI to the provided question or message') which doesn't clarify the actual news article format or structure. Otherwise, it provides substantial context for effective tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by providing comprehensive ID mappings for categoryId, subCategoryId, and tokenId parameters with specific numeric values and labels. It also elaborates on limit, offset, and fetchAfter usage with practical examples, going well beyond the schema 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's purpose: 'Get the latest AI-related crypto and web3 articles.' It specifies the resource (AI-related crypto/web3 articles) and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on news retrieval rather than chat history or chat invocation. The additional context about sourcing, filtering, and summarizing reinforces the specific functionality.

  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 for usage: 'You can call this tool without any parameters to get the latest news' and mentions it's for interacting with ChainGPT's AI News Generator. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (chat_history, invoke_chat), nor does it provide explicit exclusions or alternatives beyond the general context.

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