Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• audit_rowsB
  3.2/5.0
  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. It states the action and focus areas but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, whether rows are modified, or any other behavioral details. This leaves significant ambiguity.

  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 sentence, efficient and front-loaded. However, the phrase 'spreadsheet-like' is slightly vague and could be more precise, though the structure itself is acceptable.

  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?

  With only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what the output looks like, how 'footing' or 'margins' are calculated, or any error behavior. The tool is underspecified for reliable invocation.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  The schema has zero description coverage for the 'rows' parameter, and the description only mentions rows indirectly. It does not explain the expected structure of the array (e.g., objects, cell formats, required fields), so the agent cannot understand how to construct valid input.

  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 uses a specific verb ('audit') and resource ('spreadsheet-like rows') and names concrete audit dimensions (footing, margins, formula cells, cell provenance). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like diff_rows and verify_claim.

  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 implies the tool is for auditing row-level spreadsheet integrity but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Context is clear but not fully developed.

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

• covenant_rulesB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a return type ('Returns a signed covenant bundle') and hints at a read-only check, but it does not mention permissions, side effects, errors, or what 'signed' means. This is a moderate disclosure but has significant 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 two crisp sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no extraneous text. Every sentence provides useful information without repetition.

  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?

  For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a reasonable overview but leaves out critical details such as the format of labeled rows, the meaning of 'rules', and the exact behavior of the signed bundle. Given the sibling context (audit, verify, diff), the tool's niche is clear but operationally underspecified.

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

  Parameters2/5

  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 provides meaning for 'rule_pack' ('selects a built-in pack such as credit_covenants_basic') and hints that 'rows' need labels, but it does not explain the 'rules' parameter at all. This leaves a key parameter without semantic guidance.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('finance covenant rules'), with useful examples (DSCR, Debt/EBITDA). It is clear and distinct from sibling tools like 'audit_rows' or 'verify_claim', though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from them.

  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 implies usage by mentioning 'over labeled rows' and that 'rule_pack selects a built-in pack', giving some context. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the tool's specific role from its name and description.

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

• diff_rowsB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'provenance' as a hint of what the output may include, but it does not explain whether the operation is read-only, what the output structure looks like, or how differences are presented. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

  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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. Every word contributes value (compare, two report versions, numeric row labels, provenance), with no filler or redundant information.

  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?

  The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and only minimal parameter descriptions. The description does not explain the return value, edge cases, or any operational context beyond 'compare'. For a diff tool, users would need to know the format of the diff result or any side effects, which are absent. The description is too sparse for the tool's complexity.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  The input schema provides only array types for rows_before and rows_after (schema coverage 0%). The description adds that comparison is 'by numeric row labels', which gives a hint about the data structure, but it does not explain how these arrays should be formatted, what elements are expected, or how labels are used. The description does not sufficiently compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

  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's purpose: comparing two report versions. It specifies the method ('by numeric row labels') and adds context ('with provenance'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like audit_rows or verify_claim. The verb 'compare' and resource 'report versions' make it unambiguous.

  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 implies when to use the tool (when comparing two versions), but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives/exclusions. Sibling tools exist, but the description does not contrast against them, leaving usage context partially implied.

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

• verify_claimA
  3.9/5.0
  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 the three possible outcomes and mentions that a certificate and counterexample accompany the result. However, it doesn't state whether any side effects exist or clarify the nature of the certificate, leaving some ambiguity.

  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, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose and outcome. No filler words; every element earns its place.

  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?

  For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the core function and return categories, but lacks details on input formatting, the certificate's structure, and when ABSTAIN occurs. The absence of an output schema makes these omissions more significant.

  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 has one parameter 'claim' with 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'math/finance claim' adds domain context to the parameter, but it doesn't specify the expected format or provide examples, leaving the agent to infer.

  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 uses a specific verb 'verify' and names the resource as 'math/finance claim'. The arrow and outcome labels (VERIFY/REFUTE/ABSTAIN) clearly distinguish it from siblings like audit_rows or diff_rows, 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 implies usage for verifying math/finance claims but offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings, no alternatives mentioned, and no exclusions. Context is present but shallow.

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