Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_new_poolsB
  3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It conveys recency and chain scope, but says nothing about ordering, time window, returned fields, pagination, or the fact that results are limited to 20 items.

  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?

  One compact sentence with the core idea front-loaded; the memecoin clause adds color but costs little. It is appropriately sized even if the metaphor is slightly loose.

  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?

  For a simple two-parameter list tool, the description gives the core purpose and a hint of when to use it. But with no output schema and no annotations, the missing ordering and limit details leave an agent guessing about response behavior.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  With only 50% schema description coverage, the description needed to clarify both parameters. It only gestures at the network parameter ('one chain') and says nothing about the limit parameter, leaving its meaning and optional behavior undocumented.

  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 resource ('freshly created token pools') and the key angle ('newest'), and frames it as a discovery surface for new memecoin launches. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but 'new' is enough to differentiate from get_trending_pools.

  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 the right use case — finding newest pool launches on a network — but doesn't state when to prefer it over get_trending_pools or get_pool_trades. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative conditions.

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

• get_pool_tradesA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It tells the agent the data is trade-level, includes buy/sell direction and wallet addresses, but does not disclose limits, ordering, time window, pagination, or error behavior. This is adequate for a simple read-only tool but leaves important ambiguities around what 'recent' means.

  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 filler. It states the core behavior and the most relevant data point (wallet address) without redundancy.

  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?

  For a 3-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description together with the input schema is reasonably complete. However, it lacks details about result limits, sorting, the meaning of 'recent' (time window), and the exact return format, which an agent would need for robust invocation.

  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 already documents network and minUsd with helpful descriptions, while poolAddress lacks a description. The description implicitly clarifies that poolAddress identifies the pool whose trades are returned, but adds no further parameter-level meaning. With roughly two-thirds schema coverage and a self-evident poolAddress, the description does not need to compensate heavily.

  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 states the resource ('a pool') and the specific kind of data returned ('individual buy/sell trades'), and adds the distinctive detail that the trader's wallet address is included. This distinguishes it from aggregate or summary-style pool tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from any sibling tool.

  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 tool's purpose implies it should be used when an agent needs recent individual trade records for a pool, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives. No sibling tools are listed, and the description does not say when a different tool would be more appropriate.

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

• get_trending_poolsA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It does explain that results are current, chain-specific, and ranked by GeckoTerminal's trending score, which is useful. But it does not mention response format, pagination, rate limits, or potential variability of the trending list, so behavioral transparency is only moderate.

  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 filler. It front-loads the key purpose and includes ranking context in a compact, efficient way.

  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 low complexity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description captures the core function but leaves some gaps: it does not mention the meaning of limit, the shape of the returned pools, or any caveats like the trending score being volatile. It is adequate for a simple read tool, but not fully complete.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description adds no parameter-level meaning. The network parameter already has a helpful schema description, but the limit parameter has no description and the tool description does not explain that ‘limit’ controls how many trending pools are returned. With 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate for the undocumented limit, but it does not.

  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 identifies what the tool does: returns currently-trending token pools on a single chain, ranked by GeckoTerminal's trending score. It uses a specific resource ('token pools'), a clear qualifier ('trending'), and a ranking basis, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_new_pools or find_early_wallets.

  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 the use case — if you need currently-trending pools on a chain, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_new_pools or other siblings, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative routing guidance.

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

• find_early_walletsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly explains that results are window-relative, not launch-relative, and warns against overinterpreting early entry as skill or insider status. It does not discuss rate limits, authentication, or exact return shape, but the key behavioral caveat is well covered.

  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 three sentences long and front-loads the core behavior in the first sentence, followed by an important accuracy caveat and a short interpretive warning. Each sentence serves a purpose, though the third sentence is slightly interpretive rather than purely functional.

  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 covers the main limitation and intended use well, but because there is no output schema, an agent still has to infer the exact return format, such as whether it returns addresses alone or with additional metadata. For a fairly simple lookup tool this is workable, but it leaves some behavioral and return-shape details unstated.

  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 already documents topN, minUsd, network, and poolAddress with descriptions, giving roughly 75% coverage. The description adds contextual meaning to the output rather than to the parameters themselves, so it does not significantly improve parameter understanding 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 identifies the tool's action and result: finding the earliest unique buyer wallets in chronological order from the returned trade data. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_pool_trades or get_trending_pools by focusing on buyer wallets rather than trades or pool rankings.

  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 explicit context on when results are most meaningful, noting accuracy on newly-created, lower-volume pools and warning that high-volume pools may only reflect a recent window. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state hard exclusion criteria, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to decide when the tool is appropriate.

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

• get_pool_riskA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that the scoring is 'Heuristic, not a prediction' and warns to 'read the flags, don't just trust the score,' which are genuinely useful behavioral caveats. It also lists the stats it pulls, though it does not explicitly confirm whether the call is read-only or describe side effects.

  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 compact sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and the important heuristic caveat immediately after. Every phrase adds information; there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

  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 no output schema and no annotations, yet the description covers the main return concepts (stats, score, flags), the heuristic caveat, and the single-pool scope. It does not detail the exact response shape or score scale, but for a two-parameter analytics tool this is close to sufficient.

  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 already documents network, but poolAddress has no schema description. The phrase 'one pool's stats' adds meaning by clarifying that poolAddress identifies the pool being assessed. However, the description does not specify the expected address format or whether a pool ID/symbol might also be accepted, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema coverage.

  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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Pull one pool's stats' and then says it scores that pool 'against known rug/risk patterns.' This clearly targets a single pool for risk assessment, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_trending_pools and get_pool_trades without needing to name them.

  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?

  Usage is implied: call this when you need a risk/rug-pattern read on one specific pool. However, the description does not explicitly mention sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, so the agent must infer the selection context.

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