Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• pay_and_callA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  The description claims 'Idempotent on retry,' but annotations state idempotentHint=false. This direct contradiction severely undermines transparency. Additionally, despite adding some behavioral context (payment receipt, limit enforcement), the contradiction is a critical failure.

  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 concise with 4 sentences, front-loading the primary purpose. It could be slightly trimmed, but it efficiently covers key points.

  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 for return values, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior (idempotency, limits, confirmation, receipt). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's role.

  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 high (80%) so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond schema: it mentions maxPrice enforcement and idempotency, but these are already implied by the 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?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: paying for and calling an Obol metered service via Circle Gateway. It distinguishes from sibling tools (deposit, find_service, etc.) by combining payment and service invocation.

  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 context on when to use: mentions enforcement of per-call maxPrice and account spending limits, and near-limit confirmation. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives to this tool.

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

• get_balanceA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds network context (Arc testnet) but no new behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

  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 content.

  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 the zero parameters, presence of an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It sufficiently specifies what balances are retrieved and on which network.

  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 the description adds no parameter-specific information. With 100% schema coverage (vacuously), a baseline score of 4 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 retrieves 'agent wallet + Gateway USDC balances on Arc testnet', specifying the verb, resource, and context. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like deposit and pay_and_call, which involve transactions.

  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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, it lacks mentions of exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools, limiting decision support for the agent.

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

• list_serviceA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate it is not read-only, not destructive, and open-world. The description adds value by disclosing that Obol auto-issues a verifiable credential and returns the marketplace URL, clarifying side effects beyond what annotations provide.

  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 no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and key details (API key, credential issuance, URL return) are provided efficiently.

  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 8 parameters (3 required) and an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and side effects adequately. It could add more guidance on parameter usage, but the schema provides some descriptions.

  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 63%, and the description adds no additional meaning to any parameter. It does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions, so the score is at the baseline of 3.

  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 lists/publishes a new service on the Obol marketplace for discovery and payment, distinguishing it from sibling tools like find_service (search) and pay_and_call (consume). The verb 'list' and resource 'service' are specific.

  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 mentions the prerequisite of the OBOL_API_KEY environment variable, providing clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly exclude cases where alternatives are better, but the sibling tool names imply when to use each.

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

• depositA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive nature. The description adds value by noting the deposit is a one-time action that unlocks gas-free spending, and specifies the currency USDC, providing context 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?

  Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and benefit, with no wasted words. Every sentence adds 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?

  For a simple single-parameter tool with a clear output schema (though not shown), the description sufficiently covers purpose, parameter, and key behavioral outcome. No 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 description for the parameter 'Amount in USDC, e.g. '5'' adds marginal value beyond the schema's description which already covers the type and format. Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3.

  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 'Fund' and the resource 'agent's Gateway balance', with a unique benefit 'gas-free spending afterward'. It distinguishes from siblings like pay_and_call by being about adding funds rather than spending them.

  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 use for initial funding with 'once (gas-free spending afterward)', but does not explicitly compare to siblings or state when not to use. However, the purpose is straightforward and the context signals provide sibling names for reference.

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

• find_serviceA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. Description adds ranking details ('name > category > description') and return fields (id, price, description, URL, relevance score), providing useful behavior 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?

  Two sentences, first states purpose and scope, second adds ranking and return fields. No unnecessary 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 output schema exists, description covers search behavior, ranking, and return fields adequately. No missing context for a search tool with read-only semantics.

  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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters. Description adds examples for query ('crypto prices') and states default limit (20), adding practical guidance beyond schema alone.

  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 'Search the Obol directory for metered APIs an agent can pay for per call.' with specific verb 'Search' and resource 'Obol directory'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like list_service (likely listing all) and pay_and_call (execution after search).

  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?

  Implies usage for discovering metered APIs, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to siblings. Context is clear enough for an AI agent to infer its role in the workflow.

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