Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_pricingB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Return'), which is appropriate for a pricing tool, but does not mention any limitations, authentication needs, or rate limits. The simplicity of a zero-parameter tool mitigates the need for extensive disclosure, resulting in an adequate score.

  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, concise sentence that clearly communicates the tool's purpose without any extraneous information. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient.

  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 has no parameters, no output schema, and simple sibling context, the description is partially complete. It clearly states the tool's action but does not describe the output format or what the 'pricing entry point' exactly is (e.g., URL, string, object). This ambiguity reduces completeness.

  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?

  There are no parameters in the input schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since none exist. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter details.

  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 the 'canonical pricing entry point' for Best AI Image Prompt. It uses a specific verb 'Return' and specifies the resource 'pricing entry point', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_official_links and list_styles. However, it could be more precise about what constitutes a 'pricing entry point'.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the tool's name and purpose.

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

• list_stylesA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns a 'canonical list' but does not mention that it is read-only, has no side effects, or any other behavioral constraints. For a simple read operation, the description is insufficient.

  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 plus a parenthetical. The sentence is clear and front-loaded. The parenthetical '(Best AI Image Prompt)' is slightly extraneous but does not harm conciseness significantly. Could be more concise by removing the parenthetical.

  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 has no parameters, no output schema, and is a simple listing, the description is minimally complete. It identifies the content (styles/presets) but does not describe the structure of the returned list (e.g., format, fields). An AI agent could infer that the list contains style names, but more detail would improve usability.

  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 exist, so the description must add meaning about the return. It specifies the resource type (image-generation styles/presets), which provides context beyond the empty schema. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, and the description meets that by clarifying the output domain.

  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?

  Verb 'Return' and resource 'canonical list of image-generation styles or presets' clearly state the tool's function. The parenthetical 'Best AI Image Prompt' adds minor context but does not obscure purpose. Siblings are unrelated, so no confusion.

  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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. However, given siblings are clearly different (get_official_links, get_pricing), the description implicitly suggests it is for retrieving style lists. Still, no when-not-to-use or alternative conditions.

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

• get_official_linksA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes a read operation returning a list, but does not disclose any potential side effects or safety traits. Given zero parameters and simple retrieval, this is minimally adequate.

  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 sentence, front-loaded with action and object, no redundant words. Efficient and clear.

  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 zero parameters, no output schema, and a simple retrieval goal, the description is mostly complete. Could optionally specify return format (e.g., JSON array), but not essential.

  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?

  There are zero parameters with 100% schema coverage. Description correctly has no param details. Baseline score of 4 applies as no additional value needed.

  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 clearly states verb 'Return' and resource 'canonical list of official links' for a specific product. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (list_styles, get_pricing) which serve different purposes.

  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 alternatives, but the narrow scope implies usage for obtaining official links. Siblings are distinct enough that no confusion arises.

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