Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• fetch_gene_infoC
  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 fetches 'detailed information' but doesn't specify what that includes (e.g., gene function, location, aliases), whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding 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.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness in tool descriptions.

  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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' entails, how results are structured, or any behavioral traits like safety or performance. For a tool with no structured context, this leaves the agent under-informed about its operation and outputs.

  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%, with the parameter 'gene_id' fully documented in the schema as an NCBI Gene ID with an example. 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 ('detailed information for a specific gene ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'fetch_protein_info' or 'search_by_gene_symbol', which likely retrieve related but distinct information.

  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 like 'search_by_gene_symbol' or 'search_genes'. It mentions fetching by 'gene ID' but doesn't clarify if this is preferred over other identifiers or search methods, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

• fetch_protein_infoC
  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 states the tool fetches information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't address key aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' entails in the response. This leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more informative to enhance clarity without sacrificing brevity.

  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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal. It lacks context on what 'detailed information' includes, how results are structured, or any behavioral traits like data source or limitations, making it incomplete for reliable agent use despite the straightforward 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?

  The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'protein_id' documented as 'NCBI Protein ID'. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, 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 detailed information') and target resource ('for a specific protein ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch_gene_info' or 'search_by_gene_symbol', which likely retrieve related but different biological data, so it misses full sibling distinction.

  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 like 'fetch_gene_info' or 'search_by_gene_symbol', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It implies usage for protein-specific queries but lacks explicit context for tool selection.

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

• search_by_gene_symbolC
  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 it's a search operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't detail aspects like response format, error handling, rate limits, or whether it returns partial matches. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 concise and front-loaded in a single sentence, efficiently conveying the core function without unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly improved by structuring to highlight key points more clearly, but it avoids waste and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

  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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on output, error cases, and differentiation from siblings. Without an output schema, more information on return values would be helpful, making it minimally viable but with 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters ('symbol' and 'organism') with descriptions. The description adds marginal value by emphasizing the optionality of 'organism' but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema offers, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles most documentation.

  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: 'Search for genes by symbol with optional organism filter.' It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('genes'), and key parameter ('symbol'), making the function evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_genes' or 'fetch_gene_info,' which might offer similar functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 minimal guidance, mentioning an 'optional organism filter' but not explaining when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_genes' or 'fetch_gene_info.' There's no context on when this tool is preferred, what it returns, or any prerequisites, leaving usage unclear in relation to siblings.

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

• search_genesC
  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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the basic function but doesn't mention important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication might be needed, rate limits, what happens with no results, or what format results come in. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

  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, efficient sentence that states the core function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple search tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place.

  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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. For a search tool that likely returns structured gene data, the description should at minimum indicate what kind of information is returned (IDs, names, summaries?) and mention any important constraints. The current description leaves too much undefined for proper agent usage.

  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 fully documents both parameters (query and max_results). The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain query syntax examples, what 'gene name, symbol, etc.' means practically, or how max_results affects performance. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 ('Search for genes') and the target resource ('NCBI database'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings (fetch_gene_info, fetch_protein_info, search_by_gene_symbol), which likely have overlapping or related functionality.

  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 its siblings. There's no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or specific contexts where this search tool is preferred over fetch_gene_info or search_by_gene_symbol. The agent must infer usage from tool names alone.

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