Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_dealsB
  3.3/5.0
  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 mentions the scope ('1,500+ developer tools') and examples ('AWS, Vercel, Supabase, Cloudflare, and more'), but lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or pagination behavior. It does not contradict annotations.

  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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds usage modes efficiently, and the third provides scope examples. There is no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured.

  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 complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, response format, and error handling, which are crucial for a search tool with multiple filtering options. The description does not compensate for the absence of annotations or output schema.

  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%, so the schema fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds minimal semantic context by mentioning 'search by keyword, browse categories, or get full vendor details with alternatives,' which loosely maps to the query, category, and vendor parameters, but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already specifies.

  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: 'Find free tiers, credits, and discounts for 1,500+ developer tools.' It specifies the resource (developer tools deals) and the action (find/search), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on discovery rather than comparison, planning, or tracking.

  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 through phrases like 'Search by keyword, browse categories, or get full vendor details with alternatives,' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings (compare_vendors, plan_stack, track_changes). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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

• plan_stackA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool provides 'free-tier stack' recommendations and 'risk + cost + gap analysis' in audit mode, which adds useful context about what the tool delivers. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format the output takes.

  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 efficiently structured in two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states the core functionality, the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

  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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It explains what the tool does and gives basic usage guidance, but doesn't cover important aspects like output format, error conditions, or detailed behavioral characteristics that would be needed for optimal agent use.

  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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about parameter usage ('Describe what you're building' relates to use_case, 'pass your current services' relates to services), but doesn't provide significant additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

  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 specific verbs ('Get stack recommendations, cost estimates, or a full infrastructure audit') and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on planning/analysis rather than comparison, searching, or tracking. It explains what the tool does in concrete terms.

  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 clear context for when to use different modes ('Describe what you're building to get a free-tier stack, or pass your current services to estimate costs and find risks'), but doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among sibling tools. The guidance is helpful but not exhaustive.

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

• track_changesA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's function and default behaviors (e.g., weekly digest with no params, default inclusion of expirations implied by parameters), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, which are important for a tool with multiple parameters.

  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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage notes, in two efficient sentences with zero wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by adding actionable information.

  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?

  Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers purpose and basic usage but lacks details on output format, error cases, or advanced behavioral traits, which are needed for full contextual understanding.

  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?

  The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning filtering by 'vendor, change type, or date range', which aligns with parameters but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema 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 specific verbs ('track', 'returns') and resources ('developer tool pricing changes, upcoming expirations, and new deals'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on tracking changes rather than comparing vendors, planning stacks, or searching deals.

  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 clear context for when to use the tool ('with no params, returns a weekly digest') and how to filter results. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among sibling tools, keeping it from a perfect score.

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

• compare_vendorsA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool returns 'free tier limits, risk levels, pricing history, and alternatives', which helps understand output. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

  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 front-loaded and concise, with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, usage, and output. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or unnecessary details.

  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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, usage, and output. However, it lacks details on error cases or limitations (e.g., vendor name formats), which could enhance completeness for an agent.

  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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the semantic meaning of the 'vendors' parameter: '1 or 2 vendor names' with implications for functionality (risk check vs. comparison), enhancing understanding beyond the schema's technical description.

  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 specific verbs ('compare side-by-side', 'check pricing risk') and resources ('vendors'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'plan_stack', 'search_deals', and 'track_changes' by focusing on vendor comparison and risk assessment rather than planning, searching, or tracking.

  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?

  It explicitly states when to use the tool: '1 vendor = risk check' and '2 vendors = side-by-side comparison', providing clear guidance on usage scenarios without needing to reference alternatives, as the context is self-contained and distinct from sibling tools.

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