Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• intel_openalex_materiauxA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions open access indication but lacks details on auth needs, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. Some transparency is present but not comprehensive.

  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 paragraph of three sentences, concise and front-loaded with key functionality. Slightly more structure could improve readability, but it is efficient.

  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 function adequately for a search tool. It mentions open access indication but omits return value details. Overall sufficient for the complexity.

  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 covers 100% of parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema, restating filtering and sorting options. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not enrich parameter meaning.

  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 is for advanced search of peer-reviewed articles in materials science on OpenAlex, specifying filtering by country and sorting options. It distinguishes itself from a simpler search tool, fulfilling the specific verb+resource criterion.

  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 explicitly mentions when to use advanced search and provides an alternative for simple search ('utiliser le tool de recherche OpenAlex standard'). It implies usage context but does not explicitly state when not to use.

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

• last_articles_arxiv_materiauxA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the 'no filter' and sorting behavior but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. Since it's a read-only fetch, the missing info is not critical but still leaves 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?

  Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by usage guidelines. No unnecessary words or repetition.

  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?

  Tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. Description explains what is returned (list of preprints sorted by date) but does not describe the output format or fields. Slight gap but not severely incomplete.

  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% for the single parameter maxResults, which already includes a description. Description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

  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 verb 'Récupère', resource 'PREPRINTS', domain 'science des matériaux', and sorting by date. Distinguishes from siblings like search_arxiv_materiaux (specific material search) and last_articles_openalex_materiaux (published articles).

  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 tells when to use (emerging works) and when not to (for specific material, use search; for published articles, use OpenAlex tools). No ambiguity.

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

• last_articles_openalex_materiauxA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns published articles (not preprints), sorted by date, and indicates open access status. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but for a read-only retrieval tool, the core behavioral traits are covered. A score of 4 is appropriate as it adds value beyond the name.

  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 with three sentences. The first sentence states the main purpose, the second distinguishes from siblings, and the third gives a usage hint. No wasted words.

  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 simplicity (one optional param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, usage, and distinction adequately. It could mention return format but is otherwise complete for agent decision-making.

  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 single parameter maxResults is fully described in the input schema (default 30). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, 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 clearly states it retrieves the latest published articles in materials science via OpenAlex, sorted by date, covering all materials. It explicitly distinguishes from ArXiv tools (preprints) and mentions the open access indicator. The verb 'Récupère' and resource are specific.

  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?

  The description explicitly tells when to use (latest published articles in materials science) and when not to use (for preprints, use ArXiv tools; for targeted material search, use search OpenAlex tool). It provides clear alternatives.

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

• search_arxiv_materiauxA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses that the tool searches preprints not yet peer-reviewed, which is a key behavioral trait. No annotations exist, so description carries the burden; it could mention authorization or rate limits but overall adequate.

  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?

  Two concise sentences that front-load the tool's purpose. Could be slightly more structured, but every sentence contributes meaningfully without repetition.

  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 could elaborate on return format, but the core function is clear. Context of usage and alternative tools are provided, making it fairly complete for a search 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 coverage is 100% so baseline 3. The description adds an example for 'materiau' ('titanium', 'nickel alloy') beyond the schema description, helping interpretation. maxResults is documented in schema but not elaborated in description, yet still adds value.

  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 specifies a concrete action (search for recent preprints on ArXiv) and a distinct domain (materials and alloys), differentiating it from sibling tools like search_openalex_materiaux. It uses a specific verb and resource.

  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 states when to use (exploring emerging work on a material) and when not to use (for published articles, use OpenAlex tools). Clearly guides the agent toward alternative sibling tools.

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

• search_openalex_materiauxA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that results are peer-reviewed, sorted by citations, and open access status indicated. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication, or error handling.

  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 with two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage context, no wasted words.

  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 no output schema and two parameters, the description is complete: explains source, filtering, sorting, access indication, and provides usage guidance and sibling differentiation.

  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 schema already describes both parameters. Description adds no extra semantic information beyond what the schema provides.

  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 for published, peer-reviewed articles in materials science on OpenAlex, filtered by material, sorted by citations, and indicates open access. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ArXiv for preprints.

  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 says to use for established references on a material, and for emerging works to use ArXiv tools, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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