Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• calculate_sajuA
  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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as a computation that outputs various saju components, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects. Given the nature of the tool (calculation), the lack of explicit safety guarantees is a minor gap. The description does mention how gender affects Daewoon direction, which adds some behavioral context.

  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 extremely concise, consisting of only two sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and output components, then adds a specific usage guideline. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

  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 complex tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a comprehensive list of output components (원국, 십성, etc.), which gives the agent a clear understanding of what the tool returns. It also includes guidance on the gender parameter. However, it could mention the expected date format or input validation, but the schema covers some of that. Overall, it is quite complete given the tool's nature.

  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 provides descriptions for all 12 parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds little additional meaning for parameters. The description reiterates the importance of gender (similar to schema) and lists output components, but does not clarify parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate due to 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 tool's purpose: calculating saju/manse (사주/만세력) from birth details. It lists the specific components output (e.g., 원국, 십성, 12운성 etc.), making the tool's function unmistakable. The title and name align, and there are no sibling tools to differentiate from.

  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 recommends providing gender for accurate results ('gender는 대운 방향에 영향을 주므로 정확한 결과를 위해 제공을 권장한다'), which is a clear usage guideline. It also implies that hour, minute, calendar type, etc., have defaults. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or provide alternative tools, but given the absence of siblings, this is acceptable.

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