Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• vera_contextB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the cost ($0.10 USDC via x402) and output categories, but lacks details on auth, rate limits, data freshness, or side effects. The 'AI-powered' claim gives minimal insight.

  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, highly concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence provides value 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?

  The tool has 3 parameters and no output schema. The description lists return fields but no structure or example. For a simple tool, it is adequate but lacks completeness for an agent to fully understand return format or optional parameter usage.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description explains that sector and country are inputs for market context, but does not clarify the format or restrictions for the 'query' parameter (optional). The enum for country is in schema, but no further semantics added.

  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 provides 'AI-powered LATAM market context' with specific outputs (market_size, key_players, regulations, growth signals) and requires sector and country inputs. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like vera_rates, vera_sanctions, and vera_entity.

  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 for market context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings or provide any exclusions. Sibling names are mentioned but no guidance on selection criteria.

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

• vera_entityB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must bear the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output fields and cost ($0.03 USDC via x402), but omits details like rate limits, authentication needs, or error behavior. It provides some transparency but is incomplete.

  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 that includes purpose, scope, return fields, and cost. Every word serves a purpose, with no wasted text. Ideal conciseness.

  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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and return values. It does not detail the output structure or all params, but it is sufficient for a straightforward enrichment tool. Slight gaps in completeness.

  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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by linking country codes to registries (RUES CO, CNPJ BR, RFC MX) and implying identifier formats, but the 'name' parameter is unexplained. Partial compensation for the coverage gap.

  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 provides company enrichment from LATAM public registries, specifying the verb 'enrichment' and resource 'company'. It lists specific registries and return fields, making the purpose distinct from sibling tools like vera_rates and vera_sanctions, though not explicitly differentiating.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description gives context (LATAM registries) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. There are no exclusions or scenarios described.

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

• vera_sanctionsA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals return values (risk_score range, audit hash) and cost ($0.05 USDC via x402), but omits details like authentication requirements, side effects, or error handling. Provides some transparency but not comprehensive.

  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, dense sentence that conveys all key information: function, target lists, output, and cost. No unnecessary words or repetition; highly efficient.

  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 no output schema, the description explains return values (risk_score and audit hash) and cost, which is helpful. However, it lacks details on error scenarios, the meaning of risk_score, or whether the tool modifies data. For a simple screening tool, it is adequate but has notable gaps.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning to parameters. It implies 'name' and 'country' via context of sanctions screening and mentions the 'type' enum (person/company), but does not specify formats, constraints, or examples for any parameter. Insufficient compensation for lack of 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 explicitly states 'Sanctions screening' and lists specific sanctions lists (OFAC SDN, SARLAFT CO, etc.), clearly defining the tool's scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vera_rates or vera_entity, which serve different purposes.

  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 tool is for sanctions screening but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. Usage context is clear but lacks exclusions or comparison with siblings.

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

• vera_ratesA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses cache duration (5-min) and cost ($0.02 USDC via x402). No annotations provided, so description carries behavioral burden. Does not mention auth or rate limits, but adds useful operational details.

  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 with no wasted words. Front-loaded with key info: real-time, LATAM, countries, rates, cache, cost.

  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?

  Provides core purpose, return values, and operational details. However, lacks explanation for signals parameter and return format. With no output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. Describes country parameter via listing countries, but signals parameter is not explained. Does not add meaning for signals beyond 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?

  Clearly states the tool provides real-time central bank rates for LATAM countries, listing specific countries and rate names. Differentiates from sibling tools which are about sanctions, entity, and context.

  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?

  Describes the tool's context (LATAM countries, specific rates) but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools are in different domains, making usage clear by topic.

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