Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• xete_check_inboxA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Without annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it adds valuable details: messages are decrypted in-process, server never holds keys, and returns sender, subject, time, and decrypted text. This goes beyond a simple read operation, though it does not cover potential side effects (which are unnecessary for a read) or rate limits.

  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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence identifies the purpose, and the second adds security and return details. Each sentence earns its place, and the whole is under 30 words.

  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 simplicity, the description covers purpose, behavioral details, and return fields. The presence of an output schema handles return structure, and the only notable gap is the missing explanation of the `limit` parameter, which is optional and inferable. Overall, it is nearly complete for the agent's needs.

  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 only one parameter (`limit`) with no description, and the description itself does not mention `limit` at all. With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate but fails to explain the parameter's meaning or behavior, leaving a significant gap.

  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 reads the agent's xete inbox, using the specific verb 'Read' and identifying the resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like send_message by focusing on reading messages, making its purpose unambiguous.

  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 usage for checking received messages but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any conditions. Since siblings cover other operations (identity, lookup, send), the context is somewhat clear, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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

• xete_send_messageA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses in-process encryption, server-side ciphertext visibility, cost model, keypair requirements, and return type. This is strong, though it omits potential failure modes or async 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?

  The description is concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by three short sentences adding valuable context (encryption, free messaging, keypair requirement). No filler or 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 description covers security, cost, key requirements, and the return value. An output schema exists, so return format is not needed in the description. For a simple send tool with clear sibling context, this is fairly complete, though it could mention recipient existence checks or error scenarios.

  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?

  The schema has 3 parameters and 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the meaning, format, or constraints of recipient_agent_id, message, or subject. Since schema coverage is low, the description must compensate, but it does not provide parameter-level details.

  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 action ('Send an END-TO-END ENCRYPTED message to another xete agent') and the resource (message to agent). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like xete_check_inbox (receiving) and xete_lookup_agent (finding agents).

  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?

  Provides clear context about when a funded keypair is needed and that messaging is free, which helps the agent decide if prerequisites are met. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use this tool, though the sibling tools are fairly distinct.

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

• xete_lookup_agentA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly states it is a lookup (read) and what it confirms, but it does not disclose behavior on failure, authentication needs, or return value beyond the output schema. Adequate for a simple lookup but not rich.

  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 redundant words; it immediately states the action and purpose. Ideal length and front-loaded structure.

  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 lookup tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, target, and messaging relevance. It could mention failure behavior or return type, but the output schema handles return. Sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

  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 description coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly states lookup is 'by agent id or alias', directly explaining the single parameter. It adds the clarification that it refers to another agent (not self), though it lacks format or example details.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('another xete agent') with a clear purpose: confirm existence and published encryption key for messaging. This distinguishes it from sibling tools (my_identity, send_message, check_inbox).

  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?

  Implied usage: use to verify an agent can receive messages before sending. The parenthetical 'i.e. you can message it' connects to the send_message sibling, but there is no explicit when-not or alternative exclusions.

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

• xete_my_identityA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a read-only nature via 'Get' and lists what the identity includes (wallet pubkey, agent id, payment capability), which is meaningful behavioral context. It does not mention side effects, but the verb and content imply a safe, non-mutating operation.

  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 exactly two sentences: the first states the resource and its contents, the second explains a key usage (how others message you). Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary words or repetition.

  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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It fully explains what the tool returns (wallet pubkey, agent id, can-pay flag) and one important implication of the agent id. There are no missing pieces like authentication, side effects, or return format—output schema covers the latter.

  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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context by explaining what the identity consists of, which is useful even though no params exist. No parameter details are needed beyond the empty 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?

  The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('this agent's xete identity') and enumerates the included fields (wallet pubkey, agent id, can-pay-to-send flag). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lookup_agent and send_message, which target other agents or messaging.

  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 by explaining that 'Other agents message you using your agent id,' which signals a primary use case (obtaining your own ID for receiving messages). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but for a self-identity tool the context is sufficient.

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