Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• minimax_chatC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions non-streaming and return values, omitting details about authentication, rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only or mutable. This is insufficient for safe agent usage.

  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 at two sentences, with no unnecessary words. However, it lacks structure and does not front-load key information like parameter usage or important constraints.

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

  Completeness1/5

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

  Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to cover parameter semantics, return value details, or usage context, leaving the agent without sufficient information for correct invocation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has 12 parameters with 0% description coverage, yet the tool description adds no information about any parameter. For example, it does not explain the role of 'temperature' or 'messages' beyond what the schema provides. This is a critical gap.

  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 is a non-streaming chat completion against MiniMax M3, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like minimax_complete or minimax_tool_call, missing an opportunity to clarify when to use this tool.

  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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., minimax_complete for completions, minimax_tool_call for tool calls). The description lacks any context about prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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

• minimax_completeB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions wrapping prompt/system into a one-message conversation and returning content, but omits error handling, rate limits, permissions, or side effects.

  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 with no redundancy, efficiently conveys core functionality.

  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?

  With 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. Does not explain return values, parameter usage, or behavioral details beyond basic wrapping.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%; description only mentions 'prompt' and 'system', ignoring 8 other parameters. Does not compensate for missing schema 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 states the tool performs single-turn text completion against a specific model (MiniMax M3), distinguishes it from sibling tools like minimax_chat by emphasizing 'single-turn'.

  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?

  Implies single-turn use case but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. Sibling names hint at distinctions, but description lacks direct guidance.

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

• minimax_count_tokensB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description discloses that the tool is local and non-destructive, but with no annotations, it must carry the full burden. It mentions using cl100k_base encoding but does not clarify how the 'model' parameter affects behavior or if it is ignored. No error handling or edge cases mentioned.

  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, each carrying important information (purpose, return values, locality). No redundant words, front-loaded with the core action. Efficiently sized.

  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 covers the main purpose and return types but omits details about the 'model' parameter and does not specify constraints (e.g., maximum message size). For a tool with no output schema and two parameters, it lacks full completeness.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It fails to describe either 'model' or 'messages'. The role of 'model' is unclear given the fixed encoding, and the structure of 'messages' is not explained despite being required with nested properties.

  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 purpose: local token count for a conversation using cl100k_base BPE encoding. It specifies the return values (total, model, encoding, per-message breakdown) and differentiates from sibling tools (minimax_chat, etc.) by focusing on counting rather than generating.

  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 notes that this tool does not make a network call, implying it is fast and local. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the siblings or provide scenarios where counting is preferred. Lacks guidance on prerequisites or limitations.

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

• minimax_tool_callA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility. It explains the forwarding behavior and return content, but omits details like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or side effects. The description is partially transparent but leaves notable gaps.

  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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and contains no redundant words. Every sentence adds essential information, achieving maximal efficiency.

  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?

  Given 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It explains the core mechanism but fails to document most parameters, return value format (beyond mentioning a JSON block), or error conditions. The agent lacks full context to use the tool correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains that 'tools' and 'tool_choice' are forwarded verbatim, adding value for those two parameters. However, 9 other parameters (stop, user, model, top_p, max_tokens, temperature, etc.) receive no explanation, resulting in very limited parameter context.

  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 it is a 'tool-use passthrough' for MiniMax M3, specifies it forwards `tools` and `tool_choice` verbatim, and returns assistant content and tool calls. This distinguishes it from sibling tools (minimax_chat, minimax_complete, minimax_count_tokens) by focusing on tool invocation.

  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 context for when to use this tool (when handling tool calls from MiniMax M3) by mentioning the finish_reason 'tool_calls' behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name direct alternatives, though sibling names imply the choice.

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