Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_pricingB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 only states 'Return', implying a read-only operation, but does not describe what the actual return value looks like (e.g., a URL, an object, a text string), any authentication requirements, or potential error behaviors. This lack of detail limits an agent's ability to anticipate outcomes.

  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, focused sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the key verb and object, making it easy to scan.

  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?

  The tool is extremely simple (no parameters, no output schema), so the minimal description is partially acceptable. However, the phrase 'pricing entry point' remains ambiguous—whether it returns a URL, a data structure, or a human-readable string. Given siblings that are also retrieval tools, more specificity would help complete the picture.

  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, and schema coverage is 100% (an empty schema). Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter information, but with no parameters to document, there is no deficit.

  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 identifies the tool's action ('Return') and resource ('canonical pricing entry point for DeepSeek FR'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_models and get_official_links by focusing on pricing, though 'entry point' is somewhat abstract and could be more specific (e.g., 'URL' or 'data endpoint').

  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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools. For a retrieval tool, this absence is a clear gap.

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

• list_modelsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description indicates a safe read operation with 'Return' and clarifies the scope as 'chat models exposed on the site'. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose potential edge cases, update frequency, or error behavior, and the parenthetical '(DeepSeek FR)' adds ambiguity rather than clarity.

  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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the action and resource. The parenthetical note is minor and does not detract from the density of useful 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 zero-parameter list tool, the description adequately covers the purpose and scope. While it lacks details on the return structure or whether the list is cached or real-time, this is not critical for a straightforward listing operation.

  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, and the input schema is empty. Baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-related information, which is appropriate since none exist.

  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 the canonical list of chat models with capability notes. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('canonical list of chat models'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get_pricing, get_official_links) by focusing on model listings.

  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 is purely declarative, with no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

• get_official_linksA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It provides useful behavioral context by noting that links are included 'when available', which hints at conditional inclusion. It does not mention side effects or return format, but for a getter with no parameters, this is sufficient and adds value beyond the bare operation.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action ('Return'), the object ('canonical list'), the scope ('DeepSeek FR'), and the details ('website, support, docs when available') efficiently.

  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 there is no output schema, the description appropriately describes the return value and its contents. It covers the types of links and the 'when available' nuance, which is enough for a 0-parameter tool. It could mention error behavior or empty results, but for this simple tool, it is adequately 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?

  The input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to explain. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics. It correctly focuses on the output.

  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 the canonical list of official links for DeepSeek FR, specifying the types of links (website, support, docs). The verb 'Return' and resource 'canonical list of official links' make it distinct from sibling tools like list_models and get_pricing, which have 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 Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description makes it clear when to use the tool (when official links are needed), and the siblings are about models and pricing, so the context is evident. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though these are implied by the tool's narrow scope.

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