Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• find_servicesA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and dynamic results. The description reinforces read-only behavior and adds context about the live network search, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations offer.

  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 three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence immediately states the core action, and subsequent sentences add essential context on workflow and safety.

  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 5 parameters, 1 required, and no output schema, the description provides a high-level overview of returns but lacks detail on result structure (e.g., field names, array format). It's adequate but not fully complete for invoking the tool correctly.

  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 baseline is 3. The description doesn't add new semantic details about parameters beyond what the schema provides. It mentions output fields but not parameter specifics, so it barely meets the baseline.

  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 searches a live network for paid services (HTTP APIs and MCP tools). It specifies the return fields (price, networks, resource URL) and distinguishes from siblings like pay_and_call (for using services) and inspect_endpoint (likely for inspection).

  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?

  It explicitly tells agents to pass a resource into pay_and_call to use it, providing clear context on when to use this tool versus its sibling. It also marks the tool as read-only, though it doesn't explicitly exclude alternative scenarios.

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

• pay_and_callA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses key behaviors: automatic payment settlement, two signing modes, bounded by max_usd and MAX_PAY_USD cap, refusal before money moves if over cap, confirmation requirement, and token override behavior. Annotations (destructiveHint=true) are consistent, and the description adds context beyond 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?

  The description is concise (~150 words) and well-structured with clear separation of modes, tokens, and constraints. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or 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?

  Covers main aspects of a payment tool but lacks details on return value format (no output schema) and error handling (e.g., what happens if payment succeeds but endpoint fails). Idempotency key is described in schema but not emphasized in description. Some gaps remain.

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds some context (e.g., session_token overrides secret, token ignored when session_token, max_usd bounded by cap), but most parameter meaning is already clear from 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?

  The description clearly states the tool calls a paid x402 endpoint, settles payment, and returns the result. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (find_services, inspect_endpoint, x402_wallet) which are about finding, inspecting, or managing wallets, not executing paid calls.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use self-custodial vs session-governed modes, which token to pay with (USDC or $THREE), and mentions caps and confirmation. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.

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

• inspect_endpointA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Adds behavioral context beyond annotations: no signer required, returns result if free. Annotations include readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true; description adds operational details without contradiction.

  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, front-loaded with primary action. No redundant information. Every part earns its place.

  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 3 parameters (all well-described), annotations, and no output schema, the description fully explains behavior, use case, and return types. Sufficient for correct agent 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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema (e.g., 'probe with' for method). Baseline score 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?

  Clearly identifies the tool's action (fetch/inspect) and resource (x402 endpoint). Explicitly states it returns payment requirements without paying, distinguishing from sibling pay_and_call.

  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?

  Explicitly states 'Use this to learn the cost before pay_and_call' and notes 'No signer required'. Provides clear context for when to use, though could further differentiate from find_services and x402_wallet.

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

• x402_walletA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Adds context beyond annotations: explains real-time balance, signer derivation, and explicitly states 'never moves funds'. No contradiction 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?

  Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance. Highly concise.

  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?

  Despite no output schema, the description covers return values (address and balance), usage options, and when to invoke. Complete for a simple read-only tool.

  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 has 100% coverage with a description for the 'address' parameter. The description reinforces the behavior of omitting address to use the configured signer, which is helpful for the agent.

  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 'Show a Solana wallet's address and live SOL + USDC balance' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like pay_and_call, find_services, and inspect_endpoint.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly advises calling this before pay_and_call to confirm USDC balance, and explains derivation from signer when no address is provided. Also clarifies it is read-only.

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