Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• normalize_x402A
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating no side effects. The description adds that the output is a canonical mandate, which is useful context but does not disclose error handling or validation behavior.

  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, well-structured sentence with no redundancy. Front-loads the action and outcome.

  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 open input schema (additionalProperties: true) and existence of an output schema, the description provides a high-level transformation purpose. However, it lacks details on what constitutes a valid x402 payload, which an agent might need to construct inputs.

  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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter. The description adds only 'An x402 payment payload.', which is generic and adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter name.

  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 action (normalize), the source format (Coinbase x402 payment requirement/receipt), and the output (canonical mandate). It distinguishes itself from sibling normalize_ap2 by naming the specific source protocol.

  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 this tool is a prerequisite for other tools like check_mandate, to_pain001, etc., by mentioning 'the other tools accept'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over normalize_ap2 or provide any exclusions.

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

• normalize_ap2A
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which the description does not contradict. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the transformation to a canonical format and its consumption by other tools.

  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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any extraneous words.

  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 presence of an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description adequately completes the context for a transformation tool. It lacks some detail on the canonical mandate format but the output schema likely fills that gap.

  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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for the only parameter 'payload'. The description does not add significant additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline.

  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 'normalise', the specific resource 'Google AP2 mandate payload', and the outcome 'canonical mandate the other tools accept'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'normalize_x402' by specifying the AP2 format.

  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 clearly indicates the tool is for AP2 payloads, which helps differentiate it from sibling normalizer 'normalize_x402'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives beyond the implied sibling context.

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

• to_pacs008A
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable context about the output format (using pacs.008 field names) and business purpose, which goes 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?

  The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler.

  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 presence of a detailed input schema and output schema, the description is adequately complete. It explains the tool's purpose and output format. The only minor gap is a lack of explicit prerequisite reference (e.g., mandate must be canonical from normalize tools), but this is covered in the 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?

  The input schema provides 100% coverage for the mandate parameter, so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add new information about the parameter itself; it focuses on the output. No additional semantics provided beyond the schema.

  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 'convert' and the resource 'canonical mandate into a pacs.008 record', explaining its use for interbank settlement of an agent-authorised payment. This distinguishes it from siblings like to_pain001 (which produces pain.001) and normalize tools.

  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 implies usage for converting a canonical mandate to a pacs.008 record for interbank settlement, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives beyond the implicit purpose.

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

• to_pain001A
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description discloses that the tool performs a conversion using 'exact field names pain001 expects', which adds behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's transformation nature aligns with these. No contradictions observed.

  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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action, and contains no extraneous words. Every part serves a purpose: defining the conversion, specifying the output format, and indicating the downstream use.

  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 simple parameter set (1 required parameter with full schema coverage), the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and workflow integration. It mentions the output format and downstream tool, which is helpful. The existence of an output schema (not shown) further reduces the need to describe return values. Minor gap: no mention of error handling or validation.

  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 schema description for the 'mandate' parameter is comprehensive, listing expected fields and referencing normalization tools. The description adds value by stating 'using the exact field names pain001 expects', which clarifies the mapping goal beyond the schema's listing of fields.

  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 specifies the verb 'Convert', the resource 'canonical mandate into a pain.001 record', and the intended use case 'for wire-valid XML'. It differentiates from siblings by mentioning the specific output format (pain.001) and the expected input (canonical mandate as from normalize_ap2/normalize_x402), making it distinct from to_pacs008 and others.

  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 implies usage context by stating the output 'feeds straight into pain001 generate_message', indicating a downstream tool. Sibling tools like to_pacs008 and normalize_* steps suggest different stages in a workflow, but no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance is provided, though 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.

• check_mandateA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Description details what is checked (fields, cap, expiry, proof) and that output includes 'ok plus violations and warnings.' Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, so description adds behavioral context 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?

  Three sentences: purpose, output, usage instruction. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

  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 parameter complexity (mandate object with many fields) and existence of output schema, description sufficiently covers when and how to use. Mentions return format and prerequisite step.

  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 100%, baseline 3. Description adds meaning by explaining 'as_of' is for expiry check and 'mandate' is the canonical object from normalize tools, providing context beyond 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?

  Description clearly states the tool checks a mandate before payment conversion, listing specific checks (fields, cap, expiry, proof). It distinguishes from sibling normalize and convert tools by positioning as a guardrail step.

  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 says 'Run this before converting,' indicating it should be used before to_pain001 or to_pacs008. Does not exclude other uses but provides clear context.

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