Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• t_find_marketsC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  Annotations are not provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic function and does not mention aspects like whether results are ranked, paginated, or if there are rate limits. The agent is left uninformed about important behaviors beyond the surface-level purpose.

  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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action. It is concise with no wasted words. However, it achieves conciseness at the cost of omitting necessary details like parameter explanations and usage scenarios.

  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?

  Given the lack of output schema and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., market IDs, details) or how the parameters like 'limit' and 'group_by' affect results. More context is needed for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema lacks parameter descriptions. The description only mentions the 'query' parameter implicitly via examples (article body, news headline) but does not explain 'limit' or 'group_by'. No additional semantics are added beyond the schema's bare data types.

  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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find prediction markets matching a free-form text query.' It also provides examples of valid queries (article body, news headline, question), making the intent specific. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like t_event_related_markets or t_market_context, so purpose could be clearer.

  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?

  There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the query type is described, there is no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or cases where this tool should not be used. The description only implies usage for text queries but offers no comparative context with siblings.

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

• t_bundle_contextC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions deduplication but does not state read-only nature, authorization needs, or error handling for invalid bundle_ref.

  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?

  Single, efficient sentence that conveys core function and a key detail (deduplication). No unnecessary words.

  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?

  Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is too brief. It does not clarify the nature of returned events, ordering, or how to interpret results relative to sibling tools.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  Schema coverage is 0% and description adds no meaning to the parameters (bundle_ref and limit). The description does not explain what bundle_ref expects or how limit affects results.

  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?

  Description clearly states the tool returns events paired with markets in a bundle, with deduplication by event_id. It distinguishes from siblings like t_find_markets and t_market_context by focusing on events from a bundle.

  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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like t_event_related_markets. Lacks context on prerequisites or typical use cases.

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

• t_event_related_marketsC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No behavioral traits are disclosed beyond the action (get related markets). Without annotations, the description does not specify whether it is read-only, what 'related' means, or any limitations. The description is too minimal to provide transparency.

  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, concise and front-loaded with the core function. However, it lacks necessary detail, but for conciseness alone it is acceptable.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness1/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what 'related markets' means, the output format, or any constraints, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain either the event_id or limit parameter. The limit parameter's default and meaning are not mentioned, leaving agents without guidance.

  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 returns related markets for a given event_id, specifying the source (pytheum-stream firehose). This distinguishes it from siblings like t_bundle_context or t_find_markets, which involve different contexts or search.

  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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or criteria for selection among sibling tools.

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

• t_market_contextC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations exist; the description adds minimal behavioral info (accepted formats for market_ref) but omits details like pagination, sorting, rate limits, or whether events are live. Mutation/read status is unclear.

  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 short sentences, no wasted words. Purpose and a key parameter hint are front-loaded. Could be more structured but efficient.

  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?

  Given no output schema and simple parameters, the description lacks details on event ordering, completeness criteria (e.g., time range), and error cases. Incomplete for confident 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?

  Schema coverage is 0%. Description clarifies market_ref accepts venue-prefixed id, slug, or URL, adding value over schema name, but does not describe 'limit' or default behavior.

  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 clearly states the tool returns events (news/social/macro) for a specific market, with a resource 'market_ref'. It differentiates from siblings like t_event_related_markets (which likely does the inverse) and t_find_markets (general search), though not explicitly.

  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 guidance on when to use this tool over siblings t_bundle_context or t_event_related_markets. It only describes accepted formats for market_ref, not usage context.

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