Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• create_collectionC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but fails to mention permissions, costs, network effects, or response behavior. This is a significant gap for a creation tool with zero annotation coverage.

  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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the core action without unnecessary elaboration.

  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 the complexity of creating an NFT collection (a write operation with potential costs and permissions), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical behavioral and contextual details needed for safe and effective tool 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage but not enhancing understanding.

  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 the verb ('Create') and resource ('new NFT collection'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_asset' or 'list_collections' beyond the resource type, so it's not fully specific to sibling context.

  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 'create_asset' or 'list_collections'. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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

• list_assetsC
  2.9/5.0
  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. It mentions 'optional filtering by collection, search, and pagination' which gives some context about capabilities, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the response format looks like. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

  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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality and key filtering options. Every word earns its place with no wasted verbiage. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose followed by key capabilities.

  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 the tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'asset' represents in this context, what fields are returned, or provide any context about the data model. For a list operation with filtering capabilities, more context about the return format and data structure would be helpful.

  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 all parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description mentions 'optional filtering by collection, search, and pagination' which maps to contractId, quickFilter, page, and pageSize parameters, but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema documentation.

  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 the verb 'List' and resource 'assets', and mentions optional filtering capabilities. It distinguishes from siblings like create_asset and create_collection by being a read operation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with list_collections. The purpose is specific but could be more differentiated from list_collections.

  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 list_collections or create_asset. It mentions filtering options but doesn't specify scenarios where filtering is appropriate or when other tools might be better suited. No explicit when/when-not instructions are provided.

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

• list_collectionsB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 states the tool lists collections but does not describe any behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or output format. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe and effective use.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all user collections') and specifies the scope. There is no wasted language, and it is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool with no parameters.

  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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the return values look like (e.g., format, structure) or any behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool with no structured fields to rely on, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

  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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are no parameters. A baseline of 4 is applied for tools with zero parameters, as the description need not compensate for missing schema details.

  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 the verb ('List') and resource ('user collections'), specifying the scope includes personal, common, and external collections. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'create_collection' (creation vs. listing) and 'list_assets' (collections vs. assets), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'create_asset'. The purpose is specific but not fully differentiated from all siblings.

  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. It does not mention prerequisites, context for usage, or exclusions. While the tool name and description imply it's for listing collections, there is no explicit comparison to sibling tools like 'list_assets' or advice on when to choose one over the other.

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

• create_assetB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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. While 'Create a new NFT asset' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects (e.g., minting on-chain), error handling, or what happens upon success (e.g., returns an asset ID). For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the creation target and input methods.

  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 the complexity of a 10-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., asset ID, transaction hash), behavioral traits like permissions or costs, or how it interacts with the blockchain. For a tool that likely involves minting and on-chain operations, more context is needed to guide effective use.

  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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the two input sources (local file or base64 data), which loosely maps to filePath and fileData parameters. However, it doesn't provide additional context, constraints, or examples beyond what's already in the schema descriptions, so the baseline score 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 specific action ('Create a new NFT asset') and the resource involved ('from a local file or base64 data'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_collection (which creates collections) and list_assets/list_collections (which are read operations). It precisely communicates what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

  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 create_collection or list_assets. It mentions the input sources (local file or base64 data) but doesn't specify prerequisites, dependencies, or contextual scenarios for choosing this tool over others. There's no explicit when/when-not or alternative tool references.

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