Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• account_statusA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds specific return context (plan and credits), providing value beyond annotations without contradiction.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; every part 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?

  For a parameterless tool with an output schema, the description fully explains purpose and return values, leaving no 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?

  No parameters; baseline score of 4 applies. Description adds meaning beyond the schema by stating what the tool shows.

  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?

  Description uses specific action 'show' and identifies the resource as caller's plan and credits, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools that evaluate claims or verify attestations.

  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?

  No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is implied for checking account status, but no alternatives or exclusions provided.

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

• evaluate_claimA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe to invoke. The description adds critical behavioral context: 'A screen is free and needs no token. A full attested dossier (deep) is the signed, independently re-checkable audit and needs access.' It also explains output includes 'sources cited by hard id (PMID, DOI, NCT, NIH grant, SEC filing)'. This goes beyond annotations and provides actionable guidance.

  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 with the core purpose in the first sentence. It then provides context, use cases, and parameter details. While verbose, every sentence adds value—no filler. The structure is logical, moving from general purpose to specific parameters and modes.

  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 complexity (5 parameters, 1 required, 0% schema coverage) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains all parameters, usage scenarios, and output characteristics (sources with IDs). It does not redundantly describe return values since an output schema exists. Minor gap: does not elaborate on the 'overall reading' grade format, but this is covered by the output schema.

  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%, but the description explains each parameter inline: claim ('one or two sentences'), depth ('screen' for fast free, 'deep' for full dossier), mode ('research' or 'diligence'), context (optional background), documents (optional source text). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's titles and defaults, though it could be more structured.

  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 evaluates how rigorously a scientific, biomedical, clinical, or AI/ML claim was derived and how well evidence supports it. It provides a specific verb ('evaluate') and resource ('claim'), with a detailed scope that distinguishes it from general search tools. Sibling tools (check_evaluation, verify_attestation) are different functions, but the description's specificity makes its purpose unambiguous.

  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 explicitly says 'Use this whenever someone wants to assess, screen, sanity-check, or do due diligence on a research claim...' and lists concrete contexts (study, paper, grant, pitch). It distinguishes between 'screen' and 'deep' modes with cost and access implications. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or reference sibling tools as alternatives.

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

• verify_attestationA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds context about what is verified (claim, evidence, conclusion) and that no account is needed. No contradictions but does not disclose additional behaviors beyond annotations.

  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?

  Two sentences plus an Args line. All front-loaded: purpose first, then usage, then parameter. Every sentence adds value. No 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?

  Tool has 1 simple parameter, annotations provide safety profile, and description covers purpose, usage, and parameter. Output schema exists (not shown). No gaps for the given complexity.

  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 0%, so description carries full burden. Description explains 'attestation_json' as 'the full attestation object as JSON text,' adding meaning beyond the schema's type and title. Single parameter well-documented.

  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 verb 'verify' and the resource 'attestation', with specific details about confirming integrity of claim, evidence, and conclusion. It distinguishes from siblings like evaluate_claim and check_evaluation.

  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?

  Explicitly states when to use: someone has a Zetesis dossier or attestation and wants independent re-check. Also notes 'No account needed,' implying no authentication required. Could be improved with explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use.

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

• check_evaluationA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the result is returned once ready, hinting at polling behavior, which is beyond annotations. No contradictions.

  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?

  Description is extremely concise: two sentences plus an Args line. It front-loads the main purpose and provides necessary detail without waste.

  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 polling tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers what to expect (reading and dossier link) and how to get the job_id. Combined with annotations and output schema, it is complete.

  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 has 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that job_id is the id returned by evaluate_claim for a deep evaluation, adding crucial context for correct usage.

  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 gets the result of a full dossier started earlier, and mentions it returns reading and rendered dossier link. It explicitly references sibling 'evaluate_claim' for job_id, distinguishing the tool's role.

  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 specifies that job_id comes from evaluate_claim for a deep evaluation, implying a chained usage. It does not explicitly list when not to use, but the context is clear.

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