Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• unlock_list_keysB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does state an important behavioral trait: 'read-only' and 'via the Unlock subgraph'. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or the fact that expired keys are excluded by default, which is a meaningful behavior gap.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the action, scope, data source, and read-only nature.

  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?

  There is no output schema and the description does not explain what the tool returns or how the includeExpired parameter affects results. The claim 'every key' may mislead an agent into assuming expired keys are always included, which contradicts the schema default. The description is too sparse for a 3-parameter tool.

  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%, so the schema fully documents network, walletAddress, and includeExpired. The description adds no extra param context, but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema handles parameter meaning adequately.

  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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every Unlock Protocol key a wallet holds across locks on a network'), making the tool's function obvious. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the scope of listing a wallet's keys is distinct from checking membership or getting a lock.

  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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like unlock_check_membership or unlock_get_lock. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or trade-offs, so an agent must infer usage from the name and title.

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

• unlock_check_membershipA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden, and it explicitly marks the operation as read-only. It also clarifies the key validity condition ('non-expired'), which is useful behavioral semantics. Minor gaps remain around return shape and edge cases like invalid addresses, but the main behavior is clear.

  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?

  One sentence, front-loaded with the operative verb and resource, and every phrase ('valid', 'non-expired', 'read-only') adds meaning. No redundancy.

  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 tool is simple and all parameters are described in the schema. The description defines the exact condition being checked and the read-only safety profile. Without an output schema, the exact return value is left implicit, but 'whether' strongly suggests a boolean-style result, so the gap 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, which matches the baseline 3.

  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 is specific: it checks whether a wallet holds a valid, non-expired key for an Unlock Protocol lock. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings that get lock metadata (unlock_get_lock) or list keys (unlock_list_keys).

  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 given about when to use this tool versus the alternatives. It only implies a membership-checking purpose; it does not state exclusions or direct the agent to siblings for other needs.

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

• unlock_get_lockA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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. It explicitly states 'read-only' and 'public shape', making clear that the call has no side effects and requires no sensitive access. It also indicates the data is fetched 'from the chain'. It does not describe error behavior or response formatting, but for a simple read operation 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?

  One tight sentence that leads with the verb, states the read-only nature, and uses a coherent colon-separated list of the lock attributes. No ffiller or redundant wording.

  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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the read-only behavior, and the specific fields returned. It doesn't mention the network default (though the schema does) or the exact response envelope, but the listed fields sufficiently set expectations. Minor gaps only.

  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% and both parameters already have descriptions ('Network name (defaults to "base")' and 'Address of the PublicLock contract to read'). The description adds context about the lock fields that the address will resolve to, but it does not fundamentally enhance the meaning of the parameters themselves beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

  States a specific verb ('Read'), a clear resource ('Unlock Protocol lock's public shape from the chain'), and a precise scope ('read-only') with an explicit list of returned fields (name, symbol, key price/currency, expiration duration, max keys, total keys sold). This clearly differentiates the tool from its siblings, which handle membership checks and key listing.

  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 its use case: whenever an agent needs a lock's public on-chain details. However, it does not explicitly name when-to-use conditions or mention the sibling tools, so there is no direct guidance on choosing between unlock_get_lock, unlock_check_membership, and unlock_list_keys.

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