Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• yahoo_market_dataA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'Get' which implies read-only, but does not explicitly state it is non-mutating, nor does it disclose response format, potential delays, or limitations. This is insufficient without 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and a clear usage statement. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

  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 description is somewhat incomplete: it doesn't specify what 'information' about indices is returned (e.g., current value, change) and no output schema exists to clarify. It also omits mention of the default indices, though that is in the schema. For a simple tool, it works but has clear gaps.

  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 schema provides full coverage (100%) for the single optional parameter 'indices', including a clear description with examples. The tool description adds no extra parameter details beyond echoing 'major market indices', so baseline 3 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 clearly states the tool gets current market data from Yahoo Finance, specifically for major market indices. It distinguishes itself from siblings (stock quotes and history) by focusing on broad market overview and sentiment.

  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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use this for broad market overview and current market sentiment.' This indicates when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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

• yahoo_stock_historyA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (price and volume data) but does not mention data source limitations, time zone effects, or that it supports intraday intervals. It is a read-only operation, but the description does not elaborate on exactly what the returned data structure looks like, leaving some ambiguity.

  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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a useful use-case sentence. There is no redundant information 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?

  The tool is simple with three parameters, all explained in the schema. The description provides enough context for what the tool does and when to use it, though it lacks a detailed description of the return structure since there is no output schema. Overall, it is adequate for the tool's 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?

  The schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters (symbol, period, interval) are already fully documented. The description adds general context about 'specified time period' but does not add any details beyond the schema, earning the baseline score.

  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 that the tool retrieves historical stock data from Yahoo Finance, specifying that it returns price and volume data for a time period. This distinguishes it from siblings like yahoo_stock_quote (current quotes) and yahoo_market_data (market overview).

  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 gives clear context for use, such as charting, trend analysis, and performance evaluation over time. It implies when to use this tool rather than a quote tool, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions.

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

• yahoo_stock_quoteA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (a detailed list of metrics), but does not mention data freshness, error behavior, rate limits, or any potential side effects. It provides moderate transparency by listing expected outputs.

  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 concise—exactly two sentences—with the main purpose and return values front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant phrasing 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?

  This is a simple tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema. The description sufficiently covers what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. It lacks only minor details like error handling or data source specificity, but the overall context is adequate.

  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% for the single symbol parameter, including examples. The description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

  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 the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('current stock quote information from Yahoo Finance') and enumerates the key output fields (current price, day range, 52-week range, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like yahoo_stock_history and yahoo_market_data by focusing on current quote data.

  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 explicitly states 'Use this for getting the latest stock price and key metrics,' giving clear when-to-use guidance. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool names and the 'current' vs. 'history' contrast imply the appropriate context.

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