Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• verify_emailA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the credit charge per uncached email and lists the checks performed. However, it does not mention potential rate limits or idempotency behavior.

  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: the first states the purpose, the second adds details and credit cost. Every sentence is informative with no filler.

  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 two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality, checks, and credit cost. It implies caching behavior via 'uncached email', which is useful 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?

  Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds that 'proxy' is for the SMTP check, a minor addition. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

  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 'Verify whether ONE email address is deliverable' and lists specific checks (syntax, MX, SMTP, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling 'verify_emails' which implies batch processing.

  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 description implies it's for single emails by emphasizing 'ONE', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'verify_emails' for batch verification. No exclusion or prerequisite guidance is given.

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

• find_emailA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses behavioral details: generates ~50 permutations, performs SMTP verification, returns result or not_found, charges 10 Fox Credits. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and does so adequately.

  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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Efficient and clear.

  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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains the process, result, and credits comprehensively. Lacks details on timeouts or errors, but is otherwise 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?

  Input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds minor value by noting middle_name is optional for more permutations, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

  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?

  States verb 'Find', resource 'business email', and scope 'ONE person's' from name and domain. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like find_emails (plural) and verify_email (verification only).

  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?

  Describes the process: generates permutations, SMTP-verifies, returns best match or not_found, charges credits. Implies this is for single email finding, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with alternatives.

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

• get_jobA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses that it returns results if finished or current status otherwise. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; it is sufficient for a simple status check. No side effects mentioned but reasonable.

  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 sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, no unnecessary words. Efficient and scannable.

  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 polling tool with no output schema, description covers purpose, when to use, and basic behavior. Could mention response format or polling details, but adequate.

  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%, baseline 3. Description adds minor context: 'Use the type shown in the submitting tool's response' but mostly repeats schema descriptions. Little extra meaning beyond schema.

  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?

  Clearly states the tool checks an async job started by specific sibling tools (verify_emails, find_email, find_emails). Verb 'Check' and resource 'async job' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings that start jobs.

  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?

  Explicitly says when to use: after starting a job with the mentioned tools. Also instructs to use the type from the submitting tool's response. Lacks when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context is clear.

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

• verify_emailsA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description discloses important behaviors: it waits for completion, handles large lists with a jobId fallback, charges 1 Fox Credit per email, and returns results similar to verify_email. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it covers cost and async behavior but does not explicitly state if it is read-only or mutating.

  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 with two sentences covering purpose, behavior, cost, and fallback. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for parameters) but is efficient overall.

  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?

  The description is relatively complete: it explains the one-result-per-email output format (referencing verify_email) and the jobId polling mechanism. Given no output schema, it provides adequate context for the agent to understand the return value.

  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%, and the description adds value by explaining the wait parameter's default behavior (true) and effect, and notes the list size limits are already in schema. The description goes beyond the schema by clarifying that setting wait false yields a jobId for polling.

  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 bulk-verifies a list of email addresses, explicitly distinguishing it from the sibling tool verify_email (single email). The verb 'Bulk-verify' and the resource 'list of email addresses' are specific.

  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 good usage context: 'Best for cleaning lead lists' and mentions when to poll with get_job. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with find_email(s) alternatives.

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

• get_creditsA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses key traits: 'Free — no credits charged', indicating no cost or destructive effects. With no annotations provided, the description adequately covers the tool's safe, read-only behavior, though it could mention what happens if no API key is provided.

  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 with no wasted words. The action is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value: first states purpose and cost, second provides usage context.

  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 0-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what it returns, that it's free, and when to use it. Minor improvement would be explaining the output format or success indicator.

  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?

  With zero parameters, the schema coverage is 100% and no description of parameters is needed. The description adds no parameter specifics, which is appropriate given 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'current Fox Credit balance', clearly stating what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like verify_email and find_email by focusing on credit balance retrieval.

  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?

  Explicitly advises using it 'before a big verify/find run' and provides credit costs for operations (verify=1 credit/email, find=10 credits/contact), guiding the agent on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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

• find_emailsA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, description fully discloses: submission, waiting, returning results, cost, and jobId for large lists. Clearly communicates asynchronous behavior and polling mechanism.

  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?

  Three concise sentences cover purpose, behavior, and constraints without redundancy. Front-loaded with key action.

  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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, description explains return behavior (found email per contact or jobId), limits, and costs. No gaps.

  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 covers 100%, but description adds context: 'name + company domain' clarifies contacts structure, and 'Submits the list, waits for completion' explains wait parameter behavior.

  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?

  Description states 'Bulk-find business emails for a LIST of contacts' with specific inputs (name + company domain). Clearly distinguishes from siblings like find_email (singular) and verify_email(s).

  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?

  Explains batch processing, limits (1000 contacts), and cost (10 Fox Credits per contact). Implicitly suggests using for bulk finding vs singular alternatives, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use.

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