Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• remediate_payloadC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  The description contradicts annotations: readOnlyHint=true suggests a read-only operation, but 'apply automated remediation' implies mutation. No additional behavioral details beyond annotations, and the contradiction undermines transparency.

  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 brief (two sentences plus argument listing) and front-loaded with the action. The example '(e.g. Nov 2026 structured addresses)' adds a specific but potentially confusing detail. No unnecessary words.

  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?

  Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the output represents or any side effects. For a remediation tool with annotations contradicting the description, more context is needed about behavior, prerequisites, and results.

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal context beyond the schema: it clarifies payload_content as 'raw ISO 20022 message text' and target_profile as 'clearing profile driving remediation policy,' but these add little new meaning.

  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 states the verb 'apply' and the resource 'remediation' with a concrete example, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_profiles and run_readiness_check. However, the exact scope of 'automated remediation' is not fully defined, leaving some ambiguity.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_readiness_check or simulate_bank_response. The description implies usage for remediation but does not provide context for choosing this over other tools.

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

• run_readiness_checkA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description mainly adds detail on what the tool does (detect, validate, lint, score). It does not contradict annotations and provides extra behavioral context beyond safety 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 sentence plus a compact bullet list for parameters. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no extraneous words. Every sentence serves a function.

  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?

  The tool has an output schema (not shown but present), so return values need not be explained. With only one required parameter and simple inputs, the description covers the essential actions. It omits error handling or score mechanics, but overall is adequate for its complexity.

  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%, and the description's Args section mostly echoes the schema descriptions. It adds slight value by noting filename_hint is 'for routing' and implicitly clarifying payload_content must be raw text. However, this is minimal additional semantic meaning 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 starts with a clear list of actions: 'Detect, validate, profile-lint, and score a payload's readiness.' It specifies the resource (ISO 20022 payload) and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (list_profiles, remediate_payload, simulate_bank_response) 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?

  The description implies usage by outlining the tool's function, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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

• simulate_bank_responseA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description adds behavioral context (mocking a bank response, emitting a status report) beyond annotations which already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. It clarifies the tool is non-destructive and simulates outcomes.

  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 clear and structured with bullet-like args. It is reasonably concise, though it could be slightly leaner by not repeating parameter names.

  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 has an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It sufficiently explains the simulation behavior and parameter roles. Could mention the output is a pacs.002 status report, but overall 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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds key constraint: reason_code is required when RJCT, which is not fully explicit in the schema (schema has default null but no conditional requirement in description). This adds value 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 tool emits a pacs.002 status report mocking a bank's response, with a specific verb ('emit') and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_profiles or run_readiness_check.

  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 alternatives, such as when simulation is appropriate vs real bank responses. Usage is implied by the simulation nature.

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

• list_profilesA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining the tool's role in discovering parameters for other tools, which is behavioral context beyond the 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?

  Two focused sentences: the first states the action, the second explains the utility. No filler, every sentence earns its place.

  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 zero parameters, a rich set of annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, why to use it, and how it relates to sibling tools.

  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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no inputs are 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?

  The description uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'clearing profiles', with examples (CBPR+, SEPA_Instant) that clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like run_readiness_check or simulate_bank_response.

  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 second sentence explicitly states the purpose of discovering target_profile values for other tools, providing clear context. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' but is otherwise very helpful.

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