Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• ecount_callC
  2.2/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate whether the call is read-only or mutating, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description only says 'calls the endpoint,' giving zero behavioral context.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness2/5

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

  The description is a single short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It fails to convey essential context, so the sentence does not 'earn its place.' Similar to the 'Process' example, this is a lack of content, not effective conciseness.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a generic OAPI/V2 caller with no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain that behavior depends on the endpoint, potential side effects, or error handling. Although the schema covers parameters and an output schema exists, the description does not provide enough context for safe agent 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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters (endpoint and payload). The tool description itself adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and there is no additional value from the description.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description identifies the action ('calls') and resource ('ecount OAPI/V2 endpoint') but is vague about what the endpoint actually does. It does not differentiate this generic call tool from sibling tools like ecount_save_customer or ecount_save_invoice, which are specific operations. It is not a tautology, but it lacks specificity.

  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?

  The description provides no information about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It does not state that this is a low-level generic caller for arbitrary endpoints, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. An agent has no guidance on tool selection.

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

• ecount_save_customerB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '거래처를 등록한다' implies a write operation (creating a customer), but there's no information about duplicate handling, required permissions, side effects, or response format. The manual reference is a pointer, not an actual disclosure.

  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, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose and includes a manual reference for details. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The tool is a mutation (write) operation with no annotations and a minimal description. It doesn't address potential complexities like duplicate customers or ERP-specific settings, leaving the AI agent under-informed. The output schema exists but is not visible, and the description does not compensate for the lack of behavioral context.

  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 schema description covers 100% of the only parameter (customers), detailing required and optional keys. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level information, but since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 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 clearly states the tool's function: '거래처를 등록한다' (register a customer), which is a specific verb and resource, and is distinct from sibling tools like ecount_save_invoice or ecount_web_export_tax_invoices. The manual reference adds credibility and precision.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's obvious that it's for customer registration, the description doesn't mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The manual reference could imply more details, but it's not stated in the description itself.

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

• ecount_save_invoiceA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the most critical trait: this tool does NOT issue electronic tax invoices, only prepares the journal entry. This is valuable context. However, it does not mention side effects, idempotency, validation behavior, permissions, or error handling, leaving gaps in transparency beyond the single boundary condition.

  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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that immediately state the action, scope, and critical limitation. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, includes a useful manual reference, 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.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (one nested array parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the most crucial contextual boundary: the distinction between journal entry preparation and actual tax invoice issuance. It also points to the manual for full parameter details. However, it omits operational prerequisites or failure behavior, which would push it to a 5.

  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 provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions of the 'invoices' array items, including required keys like TAX_GUBUN, CR_CODE/DR_CODE, and optional fields like TRX_DATE and REMARKS. The tool description adds only a manual reference ($9) and does not supplement parameter meaning beyond the schema. Hence, baseline 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's function: 'Enters sales/purchase slip II automatic journal entries' (매출·매입전표 II 자동분개를 입력한다). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by clarifying that actual e-tax invoice issuance is outside OAPI scope, implying ecount_web_export_tax_invoices or human action covers that, while ecount_save_customer is for customers. This is a specific verb+resource with clear differentiation.

  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 clear context on when to use: for automating accounting journal entries up to but not including the actual tax invoice issuance. It explicitly states the tool's limitation ('actual e-tax invoice issuance is handled by a person after review in ecount ERP (outside OAPI scope)'), which helps avoid misuse. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or provide step-by-step usage conditions, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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

• ecount_web_export_tax_invoicesA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses the OAPI limitation, web-session-based behavior, headless login via env vars, return format (columns/rows/count), failure conditions (RuntimeError on missing trusted device or 2FA), and the required first-time manual setup. This is comprehensive.

  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 moderately detailed but well-structured with clear sections (main description, returns, note). Each sentence provides value, including the reference to implementation docs and the bootstrap step. Slightly verbose but appropriate for the complexity.

  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 no-parameter tool, the description covers the purpose, return structure, prerequisites, and failure modes. It also references additional documentation. It could be slightly more explicit about what the column/row data contains, but given an output schema exists, this is sufficient.

  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 the baseline is 4. The description mentions environment variables used for login, but these are not tool parameters and are contextually useful. No parameter confusion exists.

  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 it extracts a purchase electronic tax invoice list via a web session, with a specific screen (ECTAX102M). It distinguishes itself from siblings (save/call tools) by focusing on export/read, and mentions an OAPI limitation that makes this tool necessary.

  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?

  It explains when to use the tool (because OAPI does not support this feature) and provides a prerequisite (one-time manual login for trusted device registration). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or give exclusions, but the context is clear enough.

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