Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_stock_quoteA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return fields (price, day change, percent change, currency) but does not disclose data source, latency, real-time vs delayed data, error handling, or rate limits. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

  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 extremely concise with two short sections: a clear one-line purpose followed by parameter and return details. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information.

  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 tool's simplicity, the description covers the main purpose and return values. An output schema exists, so return details may be further documented there. However, it lacks mention of error cases, prerequisites, or any prerequisites for use, which would enhance completeness.

  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 has 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'symbol' parameter as a ticker symbol with examples (AAPL, MSFT, SPY), adding meaning beyond the schema's bare type definition. Could be slightly more precise about case sensitivity or exchange, but overall helpful.

  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 'Get the latest price for a stock or ETF', specifying the verb and resource. The tool distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_crypto_price' (crypto) and 'get_stock_history' (historical data) by focusing on current price retrieval for stocks and ETFs.

  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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings. The description implies it's for stocks/ETFs but does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like 'analyze_stock' for deeper analysis.

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

• get_stock_historyA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format (list of candles ordered oldest-to-newest) and parameter constraints. No contradictions; it is a read-only tool without 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is concise, front-loading the main purpose, then listing parameters with examples in a clean formatted style. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff.

  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 tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description adequately covers parameter usage and return format. It does not mention data source or rate limits, but these are not critical for basic usage.

  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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining symbol as 'Ticker symbol, e.g., AAPL', period as 'Lookback window', interval as 'Candle size', and provides example values. This is effective but could be slightly more detailed.

  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 retrieves historical OHLCV candles for stocks or ETFs, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_stock_quote (current price) and analyze_stock (analysis). The verb 'Get' and resource 'historical OHLCV candles for a stock or ETF' 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 Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides clear parameter guidance (symbol, period, interval) with examples, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_stock or get_stock_quote. The context is implied for historical data retrieval.

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

• get_crypto_priceA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the output format (current price and 24h change) and the external dependency (CoinGecko) through the parameter description.

  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 Args and Returns sections, but it is slightly verbose. The key information is 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?

  The tool is simple, the description explains parameters and return values, and an output schema exists. No gaps are apparent.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: coin_id is the slug (not ticker) with examples, and vs_currency is the quote currency with examples.

  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 gets the latest cryptocurrency price, with specific examples. The sibling tools are for stocks, so it distinguishes well.

  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?

  Usage is implied by the tool name and sibling context (crypto vs stocks), but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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

• analyze_stockA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

  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 computed indicators (SMA20, SMA50, EMA20, RSI14) and explains that insufficient history results in null values, providing clear behavioral expectations.

  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 and well-structured, using a docstring format with dedicated Args and Returns sections. It front-loads the main purpose and every sentence provides value without redundancy.

  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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description still explains the return values in detail, including the closing price, three moving averages, RSI, and handling of nulls. It covers the lookback window and default behavior, making it complete for an agent.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so parameter documentation relies entirely on the description. The description adds meaning to both parameters: symbol is explained with an example (AAPL), and period is described as a lookback window with default '6mo' and a cross-reference to get_stock_history for more 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 states 'Compute common technical indicators for a stock over a lookback window,' which uses a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_stock_history (raw history) and get_stock_quote (current quote).

  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 (when needing technical indicators) and references get_stock_history for period details, but does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast alternatives. Sibling tools are distinct, so some guidance is present.

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