Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_bountiesA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable context: it is a 'public bounty API' with 'no-auth', which informs the agent about accessibility and safety. No contradictions with annotations.

  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?

  Single sentence, front-loaded with key information. Every word is meaningful; no redundancy or filler.

  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 and no output schema, the description is brief. It misses return format, pagination details, and ordering. However, annotations partially compensate with openWorldHint. Adequate but has gaps.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  With only 29% schema coverage, the description must compensate but only provides high-level filter categories. It does not detail individual parameters like min/max_price_cents or default values. The listing of filter types is minimal help.

  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 verb 'search', the resource 'bounties', and the API context with filters (category, funding, price, text). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_bounty' (single bounty) and 'search_assets' (different resource).

  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 mentions 'no-auth public' implying accessibility, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_bounty' for a specific bounty, 'search_assets' for assets). No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are stated.

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

• get_assetA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that metadata is public and description is published, which is consistent but does not disclose other potential behaviors like authentication requirements or response structure.

  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?

  Single sentence, 10 words, directly states purpose with no filler. Optimal conciseness.

  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 no output schema, the description explains the return type (public metadata and published description) but lacks detail on what fields are included or error handling. Still sufficient for a simple fetch tool.

  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 a clear description of the id parameter. The tool description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline of 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?

  Description clearly states the action (fetch), the resource (public metadata and published description for one Archimedes asset), and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_assets (which returns multiple) and get_bounty (which returns a different resource).

  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?

  Description implies use when you have a specific asset ID, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools. The context of siblings is not leveraged for guidance.

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

• search_assetsA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already declare safety and variable results. The description adds that the catalog is public and search is by title and summary, but provides no further behavioral details (e.g., pagination, ordering).

  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?

  Single sentence with 11 words, no extraneous information, front-loaded with action and resource.

  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 output schema, the description does not explain return values or result structure. It covers basic search purpose but lacks details on result format, matching behavior, or edge cases.

  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 coverage is 67% (limit and offset described). The description adds meaning to the query parameter by specifying 'by title and summary', which compensates for the missing schema description of query.

  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 a public catalog by title and summary, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_asset (retrieve specific asset) and search_bounties (search bounties).

  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 use for searching assets but does not explicitly state when to use it versus get_asset or search_bounties, nor does it provide any 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_bountyA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying what the returned record contains (requirements, deliverables, acceptance tests), which is beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

  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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and output content. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool fetches (full record with specific components), which is sufficient for an AI agent to understand the return value.

  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 single required 'id' parameter fully described (UUID format, pattern). The description does not add additional parameter meaning or usage hints, so 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 uses specific verb 'fetch' and resource 'full public bounty record', clearly indicating it retrieves a single bounty by ID. It also lists included content (requirements, deliverables, acceptance tests), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'search_bounties' which returns multiple results.

  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?

  While no explicit when-not or alternative naming is present, the description implies usage when a single bounty record is needed by ID. The existence of 'search_bounties' as a sibling provides context, but the description itself doesn't guide the agent on choosing between them.

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