Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_schemaA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the tool's role in validation and references downstream tools (get_summary, get_search), which enriches behavioral understanding without contradicting 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 compact sentences. The first sentence is a clear, direct statement of purpose; the second provides quick usage contexts and integration points. No wasted words.

  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 no-parameter, read-only schema tool with an output schema present, the description fully covers what it does, when to use it, and how it relates to sibling tools. Nothing critical is missing.

  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?

  With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining what the returned schema contains (fields and valid band values), which is useful even though no parameters need explaining.

  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: 'Get the schema of all available fields and their valid band values.' It names the specific resource (schema) and provides concrete example user queries, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_summary or get_search by positioning it as a validation/preparatory step.

  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 when-to-use scenarios: user questions about fields, bands, sectors, and validating names before get_summary/get_search. It does not state when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the guidance is clear enough to be more than merely implied.

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

• get_searchA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds valuable context about filter encoding, field naming conventions, and server-side sorting, which helps agents understand the tool's expected inputs and behavior. No contradictions with annotations.

  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 a single dense paragraph but front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence provides useful information about filter types, field naming, and usage. While somewhat long, it avoids fluff and structures the information logically.

  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's complexity (7 parameters, output schema present, annotations available), the description covers key aspects: search use cases, filter format, field discoverability, and column/sort control. It leaves mention of pagination and defaults to the schema, which is acceptable given the output schema exists.

  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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the JSON-encoded filter format, listing example semantic fields, and clarifying the distinction between raw and expanded field names, which goes beyond the schema's property 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 it searches for assets matching filter criteria, including categorical states and rankings by fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_summary and get_ohlcv by focusing on filtered asset search, making the purpose 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?

  The description gives clear context for when to use the tool (searching assets with filters) and provides a cross-reference to get_schema for field discovery. It does not explicitly state when not to use it versus alternatives, but the guidance on filters and fields implies its role as the primary search tool.

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

• get_accountA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context about response fields, pending plan changes, and pay-per-use credit balances, exceeding the annotations without contradicting them.

  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 concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then structured enumeration of response fields. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

  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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with strong annotations and an existing output schema, the description fully covers response details and special cases (pay-per-use, pending plan changes). It leaves no material gaps for an agent to misuse the tool.

  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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters to explain, the baseline of 4 applies, and the description appropriately focuses on response semantics rather than parameters.

  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 account details including plan tier, limits, and usage, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle market data or watchlist operations. The verb 'get' plus specific resource delineation makes the purpose 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?

  Though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the scope 'your account' contrasts sharply with sibling tools focused on market data or watchlists, making the intended use clear. It lacks explicit when/when-not guidance, but the context is strong enough to infer.

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

• get_watchlist_changesA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns only changed records, requires a Plus or Pro plan for stability metadata, and works relative to the last pipeline run. This goes beyond annotation coverage.

  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 longer but every sentence contributes: core function, supported comparisons, metadata plan requirement, and guidance versus sibling tools. It is front-loaded and well-structured, though slightly verbose.

  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 tool's complexity and existing output schema, the description covers the data scope, use cases, and plan limitations. It explains why this tool should be chosen over get_watchlist and mentions the day-over-day only limitation of the sibling's notable_changes array.

  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% with the enum described. The description adds meaning by explaining 'daily' as day-over-day and 'weekly' as week-over-week, and notes the default. This supplements the schema without repeating it.

  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 gets field-level state changes for watchlist tickers since the last pipeline run, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from get_watchlist by emphasizing it returns only deltas, not full summaries.

  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 and when-not-to-use guidance: prefer it over get_watchlist for monitoring changes, use get_watchlist for current full state, and notes it is the only way to get week-over-week changes. Names the alternative tool directly.

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

• add_to_watchlistA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint, readOnlyHint false), the description discloses that duplicates are skipped, that the watchlist has a plan-dependent cap that can cause partial acceptance, and that the agent should report confirmed tickers rather than assuming all were added. This adds meaningful behavioral transparency that annotations alone do not 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 four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, idempotency, usage condition, and limit/reporting. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no redundant or filler 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?

  For an add-to-watchlist tool with an output schema present, the description covers when to call, duplicate handling, plan limits, partial acceptance, and reporting requirements. The sibling tools and annotations complement this, making the description complete for safe and correct 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 input schema already documents the 'tickers' parameter with an example array (['AAPL', 'MSFT', 'BTCUSD']), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond referencing tickers in context, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage 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 opens with 'Add tickers to the user's saved watchlist', a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling get_watchlist and remove_from_watchlist. The duplicate-skipping behavior further clarifies the operation's scope.

  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?

  The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Only call this when the user explicitly asks to track, save, or watch a ticker; do not add tickers just because they came up in conversation.' It also points to get_account for the plan's watchlist_limit, providing a cross-reference for capacity constraints.

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

• remove_from_watchlistA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The annotations already indicate write/destructive/idempotent traits, but the description adds that removal 'only stops tracking and can be undone with add_to_watchlist,' clarifying scope and reversibility beyond what annotations convey.

  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 sentences deliver purpose, usage guidance, and behavioral context without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

  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 one-parameter removal tool with detailed annotations and an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, constraints, and consequences, leaving no critical 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 sole parameter 'tickers' is fully described in the schema with an example. The tool description does not add additional parameter-specific details, so the baseline 3 applies given 100% 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 leads with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Remove tickers from the user's saved watchlist.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like add_to_watchlist and get_watchlist by stating the removal action and its reversibility.

  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?

  It explicitly states when to use ('when the user explicitly asks to stop tracking, remove, or drop a ticker') and when not to ('never prune the watchlist on your own initiative'), and names add_to_watchlist as the undo alternative.

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

• get_watchlistA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it enumerates the analytical fields returned, notes plan-dependent fields (Plus/Pro and Pro-only), warns that the response grows large on many assets, and clarifies that an empty watchlist is not a failure. This fully discloses the tool's behavior.

  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 long but front-loaded with the core purpose, follows with a detailed field enumeration, and ends with usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, though the 'supports requests about...' sentence is somewhat redundant with the first sentence. It is dense but efficient for such a rich output.

  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?

  With an output schema present, the description focuses on high-level semantics and usage decisions. It fully explains the tool's scope, the meaning of an empty watchlist, plan-dependent field availability, and alternatives for narrower queries. This is complete for an analyst agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

  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 and the input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to elaborate. The description fully covers the invocation context by describing what the tool operates on (the user's saved watchlist) and what it returns. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description exceeds any need by clarifying plan-dependent outputs.

  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+resource: 'Get analytical summaries for every ticker on the user's saved watchlist.' It clearly differentiates from siblings by naming get_summary for single tickers and get_watchlist_changes for change-only queries, making the purpose distinct 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 Guidelines5/5

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

  The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('only for questions that span the whole tracked set') and when not to ('for a question about one specific ticker use get_summary instead', 'prefer get_watchlist_changes' for change detection). It also advises using add_to_watchlist first and clarifies that an empty watchlist is a valid state, not an error.

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

• get_ohlcvA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses crucial behaviors: pagination via next_cursor, split/dividend adjustments for equities vs. unadjusted crypto, and a specific credit cost formula. This adds significant context for expected behavior and 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?

  The description is compact yet information-dense, using five sentences to cover purpose, use case, pagination, adjustment policy, and cost. Every sentence contributes unique value without redundancy or fluff.

  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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, output schema present, multiple asset types), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, pagination, adjustment nuances, and cost implications. It references siblings appropriately and works well with the rich schema.

  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?

  With 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by clarifying pagination usage ('pass next_cursor back as cursor') and the credit cost tied to the limit parameter, which enhances understanding of cursor and limit beyond their 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 retrieves stored end-of-day OHLCV candles for stocks, ETFs, or crypto, with daily or weekly timeframes. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('OHLCV candles'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_summary by its focus on historical candle data.

  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 specifies when to use: 'Use this for exact-return calculations, charts, and backtests after get_summary identifies a setup.' This provides clear context and references the sibling get_summary as a precursor, making the workflow obvious.

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

• get_summaryA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description goes far beyond by disclosing behavioral nuances: it explains that _meta objects are off by default, that certain fields require paid tiers, that identity fields are always returned, and that event mode returns band transition history. It also explains the semantics of 'stats' and 'sample' modes, adding substantial context.

  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 very long but information-dense, systematically covering modes, fields, and special behaviors. It could be slightly more scannable with bullet points, but every section adds value, and it avoids fluff. The length is justified by the tool's complexity.

  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 tool's 17 parameters and rich output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It explains all four modes, parameter combinations, output field categories, tier restrictions, and special result behaviors. Even without seeing the output schema, the description gives enough detail to understand the response shape and key fields.

  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?

  Although the input schema provides 100% parameter descriptions, the tool description enriches them by explaining how parameters combine into modes, e.g., 'field' triggers event queries, 'start'+'end' define series, and 'meta' only affects snapshot/history modes. It also clarifies edge cases like negative PE ratio preservation and the distinction between event field names and dotted paths, going well beyond the schema's per-parameter definitions.

  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 the tool's purpose: 'Get pre-computed market intelligence for a specific stock, crypto, or ETF ticker.' It further differentiates from siblings by describing four distinct modes (snapshot, historical snapshot, historical series, events) and the breadth of intelligence fields, clearly distinguishing it from raw price data tools like get_ohlcv.

  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?

  The description provides detailed usage guidance by enumerating four modes and their parameters, such as using 'date' for historical snapshot, 'start'/'end' for series, 'field' for events, and 'stats=true' for aggregates. It also clarifies when meta is available and notes paid-tier restrictions, effectively telling the agent how to select the right mode for the task.

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