Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_balanceB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the return is in wei and decimal, but omits behavioral traits like read-only nature, potential errors, or performance characteristics. The description is minimal but not contradictory.

  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, clear sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and return format.

  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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description provides basic understanding but lacks information on error handling, response structure, or unsupported chains. Adequate but not comprehensive.

  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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning to parameters (chain and address) beyond the schema descriptions. The return format mention is peripheral to parameter semantics.

  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 retrieves the native-token balance of an address on an EVM chain and specifies the return format (wei and decimal). It is distinguishable from siblings like list_chains and rpc_call, though not explicitly differentiated.

  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?

  No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over siblings or alternatives, nor does it warn about limitations (e.g., only native tokens, not ERC20).

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

• get_block_numberA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose return format (e.g., integer or string), authentication needs, or rate limits, leaving significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

  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?

  Single sentence description that is concise, front-loaded, and free of superfluous words. Title 'Current block height' is clear and efficient.

  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?

  For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the core functionality. It could explicitly mention return format (e.g., 'returns an integer'), but the omission is minor.

  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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents the 'chain' parameter fully. The description adds context by mentioning chain types (EVM, Solana, Sui), but this is already implied by the enum values. Marginal additional value.

  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 the latest block height or slot for a specified chain, using specific verbs and resource identification. It distinguishes well from siblings like list_chains and get_balance.

  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?

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling names provide context, the description does not mention exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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

• rpc_callA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral traits. It does not disclose whether calls are read-only, what side effects may occur, error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. This is insufficient for a tool that can invoke arbitrary RPC methods.

  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 concise (three sentences, one parenthetical) and front-loads the purpose. Every sentence adds information; there is no fluff. Could be slightly more structured with bullet points for clarity.

  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 does and when to use it. However, with no output schema, it omits any mention of return values or error behavior. For a general-purpose tool, more context about result structure and potential failures would improve 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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds only a redundant note about `params` being the JSON-RPC params array. It does not explain how chain slugs are derived or method naming conventions beyond the schema. No extra value.

  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 makes arbitrary JSON-RPC 2.0 calls, specifies supported chains (EVM, Solana, Sui), and explicitly frames itself as the general-purpose alternative to convenience tools. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_block_number and get_balance.

  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 says 'prefer it whenever no convenience tool fits,' providing clear guidance on when to use this tool. It also lists affected chains. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases where a sibling tool is appropriate, leaving some ambiguity.

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

• list_chainsA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It states no key required and implies read-only behavior (listing chains). However, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or mention any rate limits, but for a simple list tool this is adequate.

  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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second gives usage 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?

  For a simple parameterless list tool, the description fully covers what the tool returns and how to use that output. No output schema exists, but the description compensates by listing the fields.

  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?

  No parameters exist (schema coverage 100% empty), so baseline is 4. The description adds value by describing the output fields and usage context, but no parameter details are needed.

  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 lists supported chains with specific fields (slug, name, chainId, family, native currency). It uses a specific verb 'list' and resource 'chains', and distinguishes from siblings (rpc_call, get_block_number, get_balance) 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 Guidelines5/5

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

  The description explicitly states to use the chain slug from this tool as an argument for other tools, providing clear guidance on when and how to use it. No alternative tools for listing chains exist, so no exclusions needed.

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