Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_growthA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: values are on a 0-100 scale, absolute volume is included when available, and rate-limit/quota exhaustion should be reported to the user as a plan-limit message. 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.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and each sentence earns its place. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary because some details repeat the schema, and 'the other listed periods' is vague, but overall it is well-structured and compact.

  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 detailed input schema and the presence of an output schema, the description provides the needed selection guidance, source caveats, Android bundle ID clarification, and rate-limit handling. An agent has enough context to invoke this tool correctly and distinguish it from siblings.

  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 already documents sources, keyword formats per source, and the full preset window list. The description mostly restates schema content rather than adding new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score 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 names a specific operation: 'Point-to-point growth for a keyword on one or more sources.' It also differentiates itself from the sibling tools by saying to prefer it over get_time_series for growth questions and clarifying that app download/ranking sources 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?

  Explicit guidance is given: 'Prefer this over get_time_series for growth questions.' It also tells agents when this tool is not appropriate by stating that app downloads/rankings are not the App Store / Google Play live boards from get_top_trends, providing a clear exclusion.

  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 cover readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: the 0-100 value limit, volume being provided only when available, the one-keyword-one-source constraint, and specific quota/rate-limit handling instructions. 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 earns its place: scope, data shape, use cases, exclusions with alternatives, and quota behavior. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by routing and operational guidance.

  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 2 required parameters, full schema documentation, presence of an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the agent needs to call the tool correctly, including edge-case handling for rate limits and quota exhaustion.

  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 keyword and source parameters are documented in detail, including source-specific formats. The description restates the one-keyword/one-source constraint but does not materially add parameter meaning beyond the schema, 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 clearly states the tool returns a full historical series for one keyword and one source, with a data range (0-100 values plus volume when available). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_top_trends and get_growth for adjacent use cases, so an agent can select it confidently.

  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: charting or custom math. It also states when not to use it (live trending boards) and names the sibling alternative (get_top_trends), and routes growth questions to get_growth. This is direct, actionable usage routing.

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

• get_top_trendsA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, open-world, and idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: it is a live board rather than a keyword lookup, category omission mixes boards, rank_change compares to a prior snapshot, and rate-limit/quota exhaustion should be reported to the user. No contradiction with annotations exists.

  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 dense and front-loaded with the core constraint, and every sentence carries an instruction or exclusion. It repeats some schema-level details such as window values and defaults, making it slightly longer than strictly necessary, but there is no 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?

  With a full input schema, an output schema, and a description covering purpose, category requirements, sort semantics, sibling routing, and quota/rate-limit behavior, the agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly. No critical operational context 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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real decision logic on top: when to pass category, what sort values mean, and how window relates to rank_change. It partially repeats schema details, but it clarifies the intended usage patterns rather than just naming 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 that the tool returns a live top-trending board for exactly one feed type and explicitly says there is no keyword. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying that app history should be handled by get_growth or get_time_series, making the tool's niche 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 gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: pass category for four named feed types, use sort='rank_change' for climbers, avoid get_time_series for live boards, and route app-history requests to alternatives. It even includes rate-limit handling instructions for the user-facing response.

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