Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_pricingA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states it's free to call and details the return structure with examples. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the empty schema.

  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 well-structured with bullet points and clear sections. While slightly verbose with full output examples, it remains focused and front-loads the purpose. Could be trimmed slightly.

  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 no parameters and no annotations, the description is fully complete. It explains the entire JSON output structure with types and example values, leaving no ambiguity for the agent.

  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?

  Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not need parameter elaboration. Schema coverage is 100% vacuously.

  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 returns pricing, endpoints, network config, and wallet addresses. It distinguishes itself from analysis sibling tools by being informational. The verb 'get' and resource 'pricing' 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 lists explicit use cases: verify prices, get wallet address, confirm network/asset. No exclusions are needed since it's a unique informational tool. The guidance is clear but could mention when not to use (e.g., no pricing needed).

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

• analyze_competitorA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully discloses cost, response time, caching, and output structure. It also specifies constraints like minimum text length and the need for at least one of url or text.

  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?

  Well-structured with sections and bullet points, but slightly verbose. Could be tightened without losing clarity.

  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?

  Covers all aspects: input options, constraints, output fields, caching, cost, and timing. No gaps given the tool's complexity and presence of output schema.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explains each parameter in detail, including examples, conditions (e.g., minimum 50 chars for text), and the optional context parameter. Adds substantial meaning beyond the schema types.

  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 analyzes a competitor's URL or text description and returns structured competitive intelligence. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, the purpose is specific and unambiguous.

  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?

  Provides examples, caching behavior, and required input conditions. However, lacks when-not-to-use or direct comparison to alternatives like batch_analyze.

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

• batch_analyzeA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: parallelism, flat cost ($0.20), payment method (x402 on Base mainnet), caching behavior, and return structure. It covers performance (2-5 seconds), item limits, and cost comparison, leaving no ambiguity about how the tool behaves.

  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 lengthy but well-structured with clear sections (cost, performance, returns, parameters, example, best for). The core purpose is front-loaded. Minor redundancy (e.g., repeated cost mention) prevents a 5, but it earns its length.

  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 low parameter count (1), rich output schema, and absence of annotations, the description covers all necessary context: inputs, outputs, behavior, cost, timing, and use cases. No gaps are apparent.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema coverage is 0%, but the description thoroughly documents each parameter in 'items': url, text, context, id, with types, optionality, and an example. This adds full semantic meaning beyond the bare-bones 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 'Analyzes up to 10 competitors in parallel in a single call,' which provides a specific verb (analyzes), resource (competitors), and scope (up to 10, parallel, single call). It distinguishes from sibling 'analyze_competitor' by highlighting efficiency and cost benefits, making the purpose crystal clear.

  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 compares to 'analyze_competitor' and includes a 'Best for' section listing scenarios like due diligence and weekly monitoring. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives beyond the sibling, but the comparison and use cases provide strong guidance.

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

• demo_analyzeA
  5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses behavioral traits: free, 300 char limit, no URL support, caching, return structure. This is thorough for a simple tool.

  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?

  Well-structured with sections, bullet points, and examples. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy. The length is appropriate for the 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?

  Despite no annotations and a single parameter, the description covers purpose, usage, limitations, alternatives, caching, and return fields. It is complete for both human and agent understanding.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema has 0% coverage (no description for 'text'), but the description fully explains the parameter: type (string), purpose, max length (300 chars), and provides two examples. This compensates completely.

  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 it runs a free competitive intelligence analysis on a short text description, specifying the resource (text analysis), verb (run analysis), and scope (free, 300 chars). It also distinguishes from siblings like analyze_competitor (paid, URLs) and batch_analyze.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly provides when to use (free, short texts) and when not to use (URLs, longer texts), with clear alternatives (analyze_competitor, batch_analyze). It also mentions caching and payment requirements.

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