Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• proxenio_set_api_keyA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful context: the key must be generated by a verified human principal, inherits trust tier, and returns confirmation or format error. It does not contradict annotations and enriches understanding of the operation's behavior.

  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 clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples) and is appropriately sized for a configuration tool. However, the Args section repeats schema information verbatim, which adds slight redundancy. Overall, it earns its place and is easy to scan.

  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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers all necessary context: the prerequisite call, the key's provenance and format, the return value, and explicit usage scenarios. The annotations cover safety properties. Nothing essential is missing.

  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%: the schema already fully describes the api_key parameter, including pattern, length, and generation URL. The description's Args section merely repeats what the schema states (e.g., 'starts with prx_', 36 characters) without adding new semantic detail, so it stays at the baseline for high coverage.

  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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Configure the API key for authenticating with Proxenio's agent API.' It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like proxenio_get_matches or proxenio_accept_match, which operate on matches rather than configuration.

  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 says this must be called before using proxenio_get_matches or proxenio_accept_match, and provides concrete 'Use when' and 'Don't use when' scenarios. This is outstanding guidance for when to invoke the tool versus alternatives.

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

• proxenio_discoverA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description discloses that 'This tool requires no authentication' and lists return contents (platform description, trust model, available capabilities, authentication method, rate limits). Since annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, the added no-auth and return-value details are valuable supplementary context, though it does not dive deeper into edge behaviors.

  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 front-loaded and organized with a concise opening, background sentence, return list, and examples. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary due to repeated 'before connecting/authenticating' phrasing, but every section adds useful orientation.

  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?

  For a simple discovery tool with no parameters and strong annotations, the description is complete: it states purpose, no-auth requirement, returned information, and usage examples. It also clearly signals when not to use it by referencing reading matches, which maps to the sibling proxenio_get_matches.

  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 zero parameters, so the empty schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description appropriately adds that no authentication is required, but there are no parameter details to document; this matches the baseline of 4 for a zero-param tool.

  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 first sentence clearly states the tool's function: 'Get information about the Proxenio platform and its agent API.' This distinguishes it from siblings like proxenio_get_matches (reading matches) and proxenio_set_api_key (authentication setup), making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

  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?

  Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use it to understand the platform before connecting,' plus concrete example triggers ('What is Proxenio?') and a negative case ('Don't use when you already know about Proxenio and just need to read matches'), which points toward the alternative sibling.

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

• proxenio_get_matchesA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description adds critical behavior: sorting by match score descending, the hard minimum score of 40, the fact that the agent sees exactly what the principal sees, and specific error outcomes (auth error, rate limit, empty list). This is rich contextual disclosure that aids correct invocation and interpretation.

  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 clear sections (Requires, Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling) and front-loads the core action. It is slightly repetitive (match contents described twice) and could be trimmed, but every section serves a purpose and the organization aids scanning.

  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 has three optional params and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it explains prerequisites, filtering semantics, sort order, visibility constraints, return contents, and error scenarios. An agent would have enough context to select and call this tool correctly without external documentation.

  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 input schema already covers all three parameters with 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by re-listing args with user-friendly explanations (e.g., 'Filter by match quality tier') and tying them to example queries ('Find my best matches' -> filter_type='top'). This goes slightly beyond the schema but does not introduce entirely new semantics.

  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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Read the principal's verified professional matches from Proxenio.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like proxenio_discover (finding new matches) and proxenio_accept_match (acting on matches). The purpose is unambiguous and immediately comprehensible.

  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 provides explicit usage context with 'Use when' examples and a prerequisite ('Requires: API key must be set via proxenio_set_api_key first'). It also says 'Don't use when: API key has not been set yet.' However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like proxenio_discover or proxenio_accept_match, so the guidance is strong but not fully comparative.

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

• proxenio_accept_matchA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds critical behavioral context: it creates a deal container, has 'real consequences', connects professionals, and enforces guard rails (principal must be user_b, match must be active, etc.). This goes well beyond the structured annotations and fully informs the agent.

  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 lengthy but well-organized into sections (args, returns, guard rails, examples, error handling). It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While every section earns its place, it could be tightened slightly without losing important nuance.

  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 there is no output schema, the description appropriately details the return value (confirmation with counterparty details, deal ID, rate limit status). It covers preconditions, API guard rails, and error codes, making it fully complete for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and consequences.

  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 covers 100% of the parameter and already includes a description. The tool description adds extra value by directing the agent to get the match_id from proxenio_get_matches and reinforcing the user_b constraint, but the schema already conveys the core semantics, so the incremental value is moderate.

  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 a specific verb+resource: 'Accept an introduction request on behalf of the human principal' and explains the resulting action ('creates a deal'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like proxenio_get_matches (fetching) and proxenio_set_api_key (configuration).

  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 provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Don't use when' examples, mentions the prerequisite of setting an API key, and points to proxenio_get_matches as the source for match IDs. This gives strong guidance on when to use the tool and when to avoid it.

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