Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_saxo_endpoint_specC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, and the description gives no behavioral details such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or performance characteristics. The description is too minimal for a tool with no annotations.

  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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks necessary detail. It earns its place but could be expanded without becoming overly long.

  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 existence of an output schema and 3 parameters (2 required) with no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It fails to provide enough context for effective use, such as parameter formats or the nature of the output.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for the 3 parameters (path, depth, method). The description does not explain any parameter semantics, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and usage.

  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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'parameter specs and JSON samples for a Saxo Bank OpenAPI endpoint'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_saxo_schema_spec (schema) and search_saxo_endpoints (search) by specifying endpoint specs.

  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?

  No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or context compared to siblings like get_saxo_workflow_guide.

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

• search_saxo_endpointsC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It only states 'Search', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description fails to add meaningful 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.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is a single concise sentence of 9 words, efficiently conveying the core purpose without unnecessary detail. However, it could include more information in the same space.

  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?

  The tool has an output schema, so the description need not detail return values, but it lacks context such as the scope of search, potential omissions, or behavior with no results. For a search tool, more completeness is expected.

  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?

  The input schema has 0% description coverage—the 'query' parameter has no description beyond its name. The description merely says 'by keyword', adding no semantic value about the format, constraints, or intended use of the query parameter.

  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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'Saxo Bank OpenAPI endpoints', indicating it is a search tool. While it distinguishes from sibling tools that retrieve specs or schemas, it could be more specific about the search scope.

  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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (get_saxo_endpoint_spec, get_saxo_schema_spec, get_saxo_workflow_guide). There is no indication of prerequisites or alternatives.

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

• get_saxo_workflow_guideC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the tool 'gets workflow guidance', but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, idempotency, authentication needs, or potential side effects.

  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 concise sentence with 12 words. It is front-loaded and to the point, though it could benefit from additional details without becoming verbose.

  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 has one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose but lacks details on parameter semantics and usage context. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for the agent.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only mentions example use cases (close_position, if_done_oco) but does not explain the 'use_case' parameter format, allowed values, or constraints. With only one parameter, the description should fully compensate but does not.

  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 specifies that this tool provides workflow guidance for complex Saxo operations like close_position and if_done_oco. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get_saxo_endpoint_spec, get_saxo_schema_spec, search_saxo_endpoints) which focus on endpoint specs or schemas.

  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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely implies it's for 'complex Saxo operations' but lacks explicit usage context or prerequisites.

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

• get_saxo_schema_specC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool retrieves data, but does not mention idempotency, authentication needs, rate limits, or what the output contains (though an output schema exists).

  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 a single sentence that is concise, but could be more informative without losing conciseness. It is appropriately sized but lacks front-loading of critical detail.

  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 simplicity and existence of an output schema, the description provides a basic understanding. However, missing usage guidelines and parameter semantics leave gaps for an AI agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add parameter meaning. The phrase 'nested schema parameters' hints at the role of schema_name and depth, but does not explicitly explain the depth parameter or how the schema_name is used. The description is insufficient to compensate for missing 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 'Get nested schema parameters referenced from endpoint specs' uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (nested schema parameters), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_saxo_endpoint_spec which retrieves endpoint specifications.

  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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_saxo_endpoint_spec or search_saxo_endpoints). The description lacks any context about prerequisite conditions or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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