Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_pricingB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  There are no annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool returns a pricing entry point, with no mention of whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or what the return format looks like. This lack of behavior disclosure is a significant gap.

  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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action ('Return') and the resource, making it easy to scan. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and no complex behavior to describe.

  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?

  With no output schema and no annotations, the description must fully explain what the tool returns. 'Canonical pricing entry point' is ambiguous—it does not clarify whether it is a URL, an object, or a string. For such a simple tool, this lack of detail makes the description incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

  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 input schema provides complete coverage. According to the rubric, a 0-parameter case receives a baseline score of 4 since there are no parameter semantics for the description to elaborate. The description appropriately does not attempt to add parameter information.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies a clear resource ('canonical pricing entry point'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_styles and get_official_links. However, 'pricing entry point' is slightly vague, as it could refer to a URL, an object, or a method, preventing a perfect score.

  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, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The absence of any contextual hints leaves the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and resource reference.

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

• get_official_linksA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Return' implies read-only, and 'canonical' plus 'when available' provides some context about the nature and conditional inclusion of docs. However, it does not disclose return format, ordering, or any other behavioral traits.

  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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no superfluous information.

  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?

  For a simple no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value: a canonical list of official links, specifying the types. Minor ambiguities like ordering or exact format are not present, but the description is sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

  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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and it doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Return') with a clear resource ('canonical list of official links for Deep Anime AI') and lists the link types ('website, support, docs when available'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings (list_styles, get_pricing) which address different concerns.

  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, nor any exclusions or contextual cues. It simply states what it does without telling the agent when this is the appropriate choice.

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

• list_stylesA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns, which is appropriate for a read-only list operation. However, it does not mention any additional behaviors such as whether the list is cached, sorted, or subject to change, leaving some ambiguity about the 'canonical' nature.

  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 conveys the essential information without any superfluous detail. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the action and resource, making it immediately understandable.

  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 (0 parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient information to understand its purpose and expected return value. The sibling tool names further contextualize it as part of a collection of reference-related tools, making it complete in this context.

  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 description does not need to clarify parameter meanings. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description adds value by specifying what the returned list contains (styles/presets), aligning with the schema's empty properties.

  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 function: to return the canonical list of image-generation styles or presets. The verb 'Return' and resource 'canonical list' are specific, and the parenthetical '(Deep Anime AI)' adds context. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pricing and get_official_links.

  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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the 'canonical' phrasing implies this is the authoritative source for styles, which provides clear context. Since the tool has no parameters and is a simple list retrieval, the intended use case is self-evident, though explicit exclusions are missing.

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