Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• fred_get_seriesB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It simply says 'Retrieve data' without stating side effects, limitations, rate limits, output structure, or error conditions. For a read operation, it's not harmful but inadequately informative about what to expect.

  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?

  Two concise sentences, no redundant phrasing. Every word earns its place, but it is perhaps too sparse (under-specified) rather than genuinely concise—still, it is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

  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?

  The tool has 11 parameters, several with enums, and no output schema. The description provides no information about return formats, required fields beyond the implied series_id, or how to interpret transformations/frequencies. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently select and use the tool without relying heavily on 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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes each parameter in detail. The description mentions transformations, frequency, and date ranges, which loosely map to units, frequency, and observation_start/end, but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 it retrieves data for a FRED series by its ID, which is a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings (fred_browse, fred_search), but the intent is unambiguous—getting the actual data series rather than browsing or searching.

  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—use this to get series data—but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over fred_browse or fred_search, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The mention of supported options (transformations, frequency, date ranges) gives some context but no decision framework.

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

• fred_searchA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states it returns series with IDs, titles, and metadata, but does not disclose pagination behavior, the two search types (full_text vs series_id), or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema.

  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 concise sentences, all relevant, with the most important information front-loaded. No redundancy or fluff.

  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?

  Given 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It lacks explanation of search types, pagination usage, ordering behavior, and any practical examples. An agent would need more guidance to use the tool effectively.

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds slight value by mapping 'keywords, tags, or filters' to search_text, tag_names, and filter_variable/filter_value, but does not explain other parameters like order_by or search_type 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?

  Description clearly states it searches for FRED economic data series by keywords, tags, or filters, and returns IDs, titles, and metadata. This distinguishes it from sibling tools fred_browse and fred_get_series, as it's search-oriented rather than browsing or direct retrieval.

  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 advises using this tool when you know what you're looking for, providing clear context for when it applies. However, it does not mention when to use alternatives (fred_browse or fred_get_series) or provide exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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

• fred_browseA
  4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. However, it only states that browsing is possible through categories/allows/releases/sources; it does not explicitly state that this is read-only, does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, return format, or contextual dependencies. Though the word 'browse' implies a read operation, key behavioral expectations remain unstated.

  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 with zero fluff. The first sentence gives a high-level summary, and the second defines each browse_type in a compact list. It is front-loaded and necessary information without redundancy.

  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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does a solid job of covering the main polymorphic behavior via browse_type. However, it does not address pagination via limit/offset or how filter parameters relate to actual output, though the schema fills some gaps. It is slightly incomplete for full contextual coverage.

  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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds semantic meaning by explaining exactly what each browse_type enum does (e.g., 'category_series' returns all series in a category), which is not fully embedded in the parameter schema's short string description. This goes beyond the schema and meaningfully guides parameter selection.

  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 (browse) and resource (FRED's complete catalog), and enumerates the distinct browsing modes: categories, releases, sources, category_series, and release_series. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like fred_search and fred_get_series by emphasizing catalog exploration vs searching or retrieving a single series.

  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 clear context for using the tool to explore FRED's catalog and details each browse_type variant, but it does not explicitly compare with fred_search or fred_get_series or state when not to use this tool. Since it gives clear operational guidance for internal parameter choices, it meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' bar.

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