Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_price_historyA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source for behavioral traits. It discloses the tool's read-only nature (historical price data) and scoping (days, source). However, it omits details like output format, pagination, or limitations (e.g., max days), leaving some uncertainty for an agent.

  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 brief and front-loaded with the essential action. The parenthetical mention of the API endpoint is somewhat extraneous but not overly distracting. It efficiently conveys the core purpose in two sentences.

  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 and no annotations, the description fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., structure of price data). While the tool's purpose is clear, an agent would lack details about the response format. For a simple data retrieval tool, this is a moderate gap.

  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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters like 'days', 'source', etc. It merely echoes the purpose of the parameters in a general way.

  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 explicitly states 'Get historical price data for a given marketplace source over a number of days,' which is a specific verb-resource pair. The added context about Pricempire v3 and the example use case ('show me price history for X') further clarify the scope and distinguish it from sibling tools like get_item_prices.

  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 provides a clear usage context: 'Useful for...show me price history for X style questions.' This implicitly guides the agent on when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or specify when not to use it, missing an opportunity for clearer differentiation.

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

• get_item_pricesA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the dual-API fallback strategy and that the response indicates which tier was used, adding useful 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 highly concise—two sentences packing purpose, behavior, and fallback. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

  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 or annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, fallback, and error reporting. It lacks details on rate limits or authentication, but is sufficient for a basic price lookup 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, as it repeats the parameter intent without additional details.

  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 'get' and the resource 'prices for one or more CS2 items across marketplaces'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_portfolio and get_price_history, which address different operations.

  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 mentions a fallback mechanism between paid and free API tiers, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The usage context is implied but not fully defined.

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

• analyze_portfolioA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool fetches data (read-only behavior) and returns structured JSON, and mentions handling of items without price matches. However, it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior (e.g., empty portfolio), leaving some gaps.

  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 sentence but is well-structured and front-loaded with the core action. Every clause adds meaningful detail about output contents. There is no redundancy or filler.

  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 the low parameter complexity and absence of output schema, the description effectively explains all major output components (value, breakdown, top items, unmatched price count). It also notes the output format. Minor omission: handling of empty portfolios or errors, but overall complete enough for an analysis 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?

  The schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds context: the 'portfolio' parameter is explained in terms of account setup (multiple portfolios), and omitting it means combining all. This clarifies usage beyond schema defaults.

  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 'Fetch' and the resource 'portfolio analysis', listing specific outputs like total value, profit/loss, category breakdown, and top N holdings. This differentiates it from siblings such as list_portfolio_items (which likely lists items without analysis) and get_portfolio_value (which may just give a single value).

  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 implies when to use this tool (when a comprehensive analysis with breakdowns is needed) and hints at alternatives (e.g., get_portfolio_value for just total value), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives. However, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer.

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

• list_portfolio_itemsA
  4.2/5.0
  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. It discloses the output fields and sorting behavior but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, potential rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description is adequate but lacks some contextual details beyond what is implicit.

  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 concise sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the core purpose and output fields, the second mentions optional filters and a typical use case. Information density is high.

  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 the 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides a solid overview of the return value including key fields like price, quantity, float, etc. It covers the sorting and filter options well. It could mention pagination if limit is used, but overall it's sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

  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 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by summarizing the filter options (limit, min_value, portfolio name/slug) and explaining the portfolio parameter's behavior for multi-portfolio accounts, which enhances understanding beyond the raw 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?

  Clearly states it lists items from Pricempire trader portfolios with detailed fields and sorting. The verb 'list' and resource 'portfolio items' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like analyze_portfolio (analysis) and get_portfolio_value (aggregate value).

  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?

  Describes the use case as 'what are my most valuable items' style questions, which gives clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings, though the purpose is self-explanatory given the sibling names.

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

• get_portfolio_valueA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It reveals the underlying API endpoint and subscription requirement but does not explicitly state read-only or non-destructive nature. Adequate but not fully transparent.

  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, no redundancy. Front-loaded with all key information: purpose, metrics, backend, and requirement. Every sentence adds value.

  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 explicitly lists all returned metrics (value, 24h change, item count, etc.) and explains per-portfolio and combined aggregation, making the return format clear.

  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?

  Only one optional parameter with schema description. Tool description adds example ('Main portfolio') and clarifies behavior when omitted, enhancing understanding beyond 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 returns total portfolio value including specific metrics (value, 24h change, item count, etc.) and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on aggregated value rather than individual items or price history.

  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?

  Provides clear context: when to use (get total value) and prerequisites (API key, trader-tier subscription). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives among siblings.

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