Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• check-balanceC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

  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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., balance in wei or ETH), potential error conditions, or behavioral aspects like network dependencies. For a tool with no structured data beyond the input schema, this leaves significant gaps.

  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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'address' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as clarifying the address format or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

  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 action ('Check') and resource ('ETH balance of an Ethereum address'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-token-transfers' or 'get-transactions' that might also involve balance-related queries, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get-token-transfers' for token-specific balances or clarify that this is specifically for native ETH balance. There's no context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• get-contract-abiC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does without mentioning any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., JSON format). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to grasp quickly, which is ideal for conciseness.

  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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an ABI is, the return format, or any behavioral context like network dependencies or error scenarios. For a tool with no structured metadata, this leaves too much undefined for effective use.

  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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'address' parameter well-documented in format and requirement. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or edge cases. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

  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 action ('Get') and resource ('ABI for a smart contract'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'check-balance' or 'get-transactions' by focusing on contract ABI retrieval. However, it doesn't specify what ABI is or its format, which prevents a perfect score.

  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. While siblings like 'get-ens-name' or 'get-token-transfers' serve different purposes, the description doesn't explicitly state when this tool is appropriate or contrast it with other tools, leaving usage context implied rather than clarified.

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

• get-ens-nameC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s] the ENS name' but doesn't describe what happens if the address has no ENS name (e.g., returns null, error), whether it requires network access, rate limits, or authentication. This leaves significant gaps for a tool interacting with external systems.

  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, clear sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse without unnecessary details.

  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 complexity of interacting with Ethereum and ENS (Ethereum Name Service), the description is incomplete. It lacks output details (no output schema provided), doesn't explain behavioral aspects like error handling or network dependencies, and doesn't address usage context relative to sibling tools, making it inadequate for full understanding.

  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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'address' fully documented in the schema (type, format, pattern). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or edge cases, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

  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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('ENS name'), and it specifies the target ('Ethereum address'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-contract-abi' or 'get-transactions', which might also involve Ethereum addresses but serve different purposes.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like verifying address ownership, looking up human-readable names, or how it differs from sibling tools such as 'check-balance' or 'get-token-transfers', which also operate on Ethereum addresses.

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

• get-token-transfersC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks critical details such as whether it's read-only, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the return format looks like (e.g., JSON structure, pagination). This is a significant gap for a data retrieval tool.

  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, clear sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core functionality. It's appropriately sized and efficiently communicates the purpose without unnecessary details.

  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 complexity of Ethereum data retrieval, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral traits, return values, or usage context, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results from this 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?

  The description implies parameters (an Ethereum address) but doesn't add meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage and fully documents both parameters. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate or provide extra context.

  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 resource 'ERC20 token transfers for an Ethereum address', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-transactions' or 'check-balance', which might also involve Ethereum address data retrieval, so it falls short of a perfect score.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get-transactions' or 'check-balance', nor does it specify use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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

• get-transactionsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'recent transactions' but doesn't specify time ranges, data sources, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'recent' means. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

  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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it highly efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

  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 complexity of blockchain data retrieval, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return format (e.g., transaction fields), pagination, error handling, or data freshness, which are critical for effective tool use in this context.

  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 schema fully documents both parameters (address format and limit constraints). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the tool fetches transactions, which aligns with the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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 action ('Get') and resource ('recent transactions for an Ethereum address'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get-token-transfers', which might also retrieve transaction data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-token-transfers' or 'check-balance'. It states what it does but offers no context about appropriate scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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

• get-gas-pricesB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get current gas prices' but doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what 'current' means (e.g., latest block, average). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely fetches live data.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It lacks behavioral details like data source, update frequency, or error handling, which are important for a real-time data tool. Without annotations or output schema, more context would be helpful.

  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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable here since there are no parameters to explain. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

  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 action ('Get') and resource ('current gas prices in Gwei'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get-transactions' or 'get-token-transfers' which might also involve gas price data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention if this is for real-time prices, historical data, or how it compares to siblings like 'get-transactions' that might include gas prices. There's no context for usage decisions.

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