Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_growthA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already mark readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the 0-100 value scale, absolute volume 'when available,' preset growth windows, and the correct user-facing action when rate limits or quotas are hit — none of which are in the 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?

  The description is front-loaded with the core action and then adds windows, output scale, sibling disambiguation, and error handling in logical order. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or 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?

  Given the rich input schema, output schema, and safety annotations, the description is complete. It covers selection criteria, source caveats, value semantics, and quota/rate-limit behavior, leaving no critical gap for an agent deciding whether and how to call the 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 the baseline is 3. The description's remarks about preset windows and Android bundle IDs largely restate schema content rather than adding new parameter-level semantics, so it does not exceed the baseline.

  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 and resource: 'Point-to-point growth for a keyword on one or more sources.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from both siblings by recommending it over get_time_series for growth questions and clarifying that app downloads/rankings are not the live boards on get_top_trends.

  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 gives direct selection guidance: 'Prefer this over get_time_series for growth questions.' It also clarifies a not-this case by stating app downloads/rankings are keyword sources, not get_top_trends live boards, and provides explicit handling for rate limits or quota exhaustion.

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

• get_time_seriesA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint; the description adds value beyond them by disclosing the 0-100 value range, optional volume inclusion, and rate-limit/quota behavior with a concrete user-facing instruction. Nothing contradicts the 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?

  The description is compact, front-loaded with the core behavior, then gives usage context, sibling routing, and rate-limit handling. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

  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?

  The combination of description, annotations, rich schema, and output schema fully equips an agent to select, invoke, and handle results. It covers scope, alternatives, result shape, and quota behavior with no meaningful gap.

  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% and the schema itself thoroughly documents both parameters, including valid sources and per-source keyword formats. The description only reinforces 'one keyword and one source' without adding new parameter-level meaning.

  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 'Full historical series for one keyword and one source', which names a specific resource and scope. It also actively distinguishes itself from siblings by saying 'Not for live...' and 'use get_growth', so an agent can tell it apart immediately.

  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 this tool is appropriate ('Use for charting or custom math') and when it is not, naming the alternatives get_top_trends and get_growth. This is direct, unambiguous routing guidance.

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

• get_top_trendsA
  5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already declare the tool safe/read-only, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: default sort behavior, rank_change window semantics, live-board vs keyword behavior, and quota/rate-limit error handling. No contradiction 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.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is dense but every sentence carries decision-relevant information, with the core purpose front-loaded. It avoids filler while covering routing, parameter relationships, and error behavior.

  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 complex multi-feed tool with six parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential selection rules, category requirement, sort/window semantics, sibling routing, and quota handling. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

  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 100%, but the description adds meaningful cross-parameter guidance: when category is mandatory, which sort/window combination is valid, and how the live-board types differ from keyword lookups. This goes beyond the schema's individual field 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 identifies a live top-trending board for exactly one feed type and explicitly distinguishes it from keyword lookups. It also differentiates from sibling tools by framing the tool as current/live rather than historical.

  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?

  Provides explicit when-to-use guidance (live boards), when-not-to-use guidance (app history), and names the alternatives (get_growth, get_time_series). It also specifies mandatory category passing for certain feed types and warns against using get_time_series for live boards, leaving no ambiguity about routing.

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