Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• sweepA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld behavior. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that the tool scores every participant and checks content similarity, timing anomalies, and amplification signals, which goes beyond basic annotation 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?

  The description is two sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence expands with the key detection mechanisms, making it efficient and front-loaded.

  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 description explains what the tool analyzes and what signals it checks, but because there is no output schema, it does not describe the return format or how the participant scoring is delivered. This leaves a meaningful gap for an analysis tool.

  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 100%, so both platform and threadId are already documented. The description adds general context about thread analysis but does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema.

  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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Analyze a thread or conversation') and details the manipulation patterns detected, such as coordinated bots, sock puppets, and astroturfing. It is clear about the tool's function, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools agentscore and xray.

  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 usage context is implied: use this tool when you need to analyze a thread for manipulation patterns. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to the alternative sibling tools.

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

• agentscoreA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying what the tool returns: investigation briefings, comparison verdicts, risk flags, and trust badges. This goes beyond 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 two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the use cases follow immediately. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

  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?

  There is no output schema, so the description appropriately summarizes the return types at a high level. Combined with the fully documented input schema and safety annotations, the agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly. It could be slightly richer on return structure, but for a read-only scoring tool the current coverage is sufficient.

  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 100%, so both handles and platform are fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of comparisons aligns with the schema's note that 2-5 handles are for comparison, but it does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. A baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 states a specific verb and object: 'Score 1-5 AI agents for trustworthiness,' which clearly identifies what the tool does. It also lists concrete outputs like investigation briefings, comparison verdicts, risk flags, and trust badges. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools sweep and xray, so it stops short of a 5.

  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 explicit use cases: 'Use for: trust checks, comparisons, verifications, badge generation.' This gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, so it does not fully meet the 5-level bar.

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

• xrayA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful behavioral context by detailing the classes of hidden content it detects, such as invisible unicode, CSS-hidden text, and encoded payloads.

  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 states the core purpose immediately, followed by a compact enumeration of detection categories. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

  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?

  Schema, annotations, and purpose are sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool. However, since there is no output schema and the description doesn't state what a call returns (e.g., a list of findings, a report, or a risk score), an agent has some ambiguity about how to consume the result.

  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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for content, format, and source. The tool description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

  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 states a specific action (x-ray/scan) and a specific target (hidden AI-targeted payloads in markdown, HTML, code, and text). It lists concrete detection categories, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like agentscore and sweep.

  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 frames when to use the tool: before an agent consumes untrusted content. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is clear enough that an agent can decide when this tool is appropriate.

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