Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• analyze_commentsA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description discloses behavioral traits such as buffering comments per article, batch processing, billing only on processing, and response statuses. Since annotations are absent, the description carries full burden. It covers mutation aspects and pagination/caps but could mention rate limits or idempotency.

  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 somewhat lengthy but front-loaded with the core action. It could be more concise by grouping status explanation and tier details. However, each sentence adds necessary information.

  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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, output schema present, buffering, billing, tier distinctions), the description is complete: it covers input, behavior, response structure, and usage caveats. No significant gaps.

  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 is 3. The description adds value by explaining the article_url groups comments, comments array structure with required and optional fields, and recommendations for article_text. It also explains tone and title usage. This justifies a 4.

  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 submits comments for moderation and analysis, specifies the two possible response statuses, and details what processed responses include. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on comment submission vs. retrieving results or checking balance.

  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 explains when to use this tool (submitting comments for analysis), provides batch size caps per tier, recommends including article_text on first call, and implies alternative tools (get_article_results) for fetching results. It gives clear context on buffering and billing.

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

• get_article_resultsA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations exist, so description must carry full burden. It discloses read-only nature (does NOT trigger new processing), tier-dependent result scope, and that Influence scores are absent. However, it does not mention response format, pagination, or data freshness beyond 'buffered state'.

  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?

  Well structured: one-line summary, then negation, then tier behavior, then usage guidance. Every sentence adds unique value. 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 single parameter with 100% schema coverage, output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), and tool is a simple retrieval, the description is complete. Could mention rate limits or idempotency for extra safety, but not necessary.

  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% (single param fully described). Description adds value by clarifying the parameter's role: 'Full URL of the article to retrieve processed results for' is redundant with schema. However, no additional semantic guidance needed as schema already clear.

  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?

  Verb 'fetch' plus specific resource 'already-processed, scored comments for an article URL'. Contrasts clearly with sibling analyze_comments by explaining what it does NOT do (no new processing, no Influence scores). Distinguishes from get_balance and get_health by focus on comments.

  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: 'when the user asks for historical sentiment of an article already submitted previously, or to check how a discussion has evolved since the last analyze_comments call.' Also explains when NOT to use: when Influence scores are needed (use analyze_comments). Tier behavior clarifies expectations.

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

• get_balanceA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 details the returned fields (balance, tier, features, etc.) and their semantics (e.g., 'FIFO consumed', 'or null for free-tier keys'), which is sufficient for a read-only query. However, it does not mention side effects or edge cases like rate limits or caching, which would be desirable.

  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 well-structured with a lead sentence and bulleted details for fields. It is informative but slightly longer than necessary; the field list could be more concise. Overall, it's clear and front-loaded.

  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 that the tool has zero parameters and an output schema likely defines the structure, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what is returned and when to use it. No gaps are apparent for this use case.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  The input schema has no parameters, and the description provides rich semantics about what each field in the output means. Since schema coverage is 100% (0 params), the description adds value by explaining the return values beyond schema constraints.

  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 starts with a clear verb 'Return' and specifies the resource 'SentiSift balance, tier, usage counters, and subscription state'. It also lists sibling tools like 'analyze_comments' and 'get_health', and this tool's purpose is distinct from them, as it focuses on account details.

  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 states when to call this tool: 'when the user asks about their balance, upcoming renewals, or whether a feature is available on their tier'. This provides clear context and implies when not to use it (e.g., for other queries), though no alternative tools are named for those cases.

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

• get_healthA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Describes return values for both ready and loading states, including progress field. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Could mention potential rate limits or side effects, but as a read-only health check, this is sufficient.

  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?

  Concise, front-loaded with purpose, followed by a line explaining return format, and a final line with usage guidelines. 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?

  Given zero parameters, no annotations, and an output schema existing, the description fully covers the tool's behavior and use cases. No gaps.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  No parameters in schema; description adds no param info needed. Score baseline 4 for zero params, plus no extra detail required, so 5 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 states the tool checks if the SentiSift service is ready. Differentiates from siblings like analyze_comments, which handles transient states automatically.

  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 describes when to use: before large batch analysis if latency matters, or for diagnosing slowness. Notes analyze_comments handles loading automatically, so this is informational.

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