Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_daily_energyB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying YYYY-MM-DD format and inclusive endpoints, but does not disclose granularity, timezone handling, or response shape.

  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 one tight sentence that front-loads the action and scope and then adds the necessary date-format detail. There is no redundancy or 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 read-only tool, the description plus annotations and output schema give enough information to call it correctly. The only notable gaps are explicit sibling guidance and timezone/unit nuance, which are minor here.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does specify that both dates use YYYY-MM-DD and are inclusive, adding meaning beyond the raw schema. It does not clarify units, aggregation granularity, or timezone effects, which remain open.

  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 states a specific verb '读取' (read) and resource '用电量' (electricity consumption) bounded by a date range, making the core purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_lifetime_energy or get_electricity_summary.

  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 on when to use this tool rather than a sibling, nor are alternatives mentioned. The date-range scope implies a daily view, but the description leaves selection criteria entirely to the agent's inference.

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

• get_electricity_summaryA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations, notably that the date range is inclusive ('含首尾') and that the summary includes balance and cumulative usage. This helps the agent understand the tool's exact scope without contradicting the annotations.

  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 compact sentence that front-loads the main action and lists the key data points. Every element earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

  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?

  Complexity is low: two simple date parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema are present. The description adds the important inclusive-endpoint behavior and the summary's contents. It is slightly incomplete only in lacking explicit parameter format guidance and sibling differentiation, but the tool remains invocable correctly.

  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?

  The schema provides only type/required info with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the two parameters define a date range and that both endpoints are inclusive, which adds meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not specify date formats, constraints, or the relationship between the cumulative usage and the date range.

  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 identifies a specific verb ('读取' / read) and a clear resource: an electricity summary covering date-range usage, bill, cumulative usage, and current balance. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools like get_daily_energy, get_balance, and get_lifetime_energy, though it does not explicitly name them.

  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 intended use is implied by '读取日期范围...' — use it when a date-range electricity summary is needed. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over get_balance or get_lifetime_energy, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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

• get_balanceA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the specific data points retrieved (balance, refresh time, online status), which provides useful scope but no additional behavioral traits such as caching, freshness, or error behavior. With annotations covering the core behavior, a 3 is appropriate.

  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 concise sentence that front-loads the main action and lists all returned data elements with no filler or redundant detail. Every word earns its place.

  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?

  Given zero parameters, a comprehensive output schema, and annotations covering the read-only/idempotent behavior, the description provides all necessary context. An agent can invoke this tool correctly without any further information.

  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 schema is trivially complete. The baseline is 4 for no params, and the description does not need to explain any parameter semantics.

  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 '读取' (read) and clearly names the resources: current electricity balance, balance refresh time, and meter online status. This is distinct from the sibling tools (get_daily_energy, get_lifetime_energy, get_electricity_summary), which focus on energy consumption rather than balance, so an agent can easily tell it apart.

  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 makes it clear that this tool is for balance-related queries, which implicitly distinguishes it from the energy-focused siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is sufficiently clear that an agent can infer the correct usage.

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

• get_lifetime_energyA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the important temporal behavior—cumulative total from meter activation to the current date—which is useful context beyond the annotations and helps avoid misinterating the query with a daily or period-specific measurement.

  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 entire description is a single, focused sentence in Chinese with no redundant phrasing. It front-loads the action and immediately specifies the exact time horizon, so every part of the sentence adds value.

  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 parameterless, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema and clear annotations, this description provides all essential operational context. The agent knows what action to take, what the scope is, and that no side effects or required arguments exist.

  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?

  There are zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the description has no parameter burden. The baseline of 4 for parameterless tools is appropriate; there are no parameters whose meaning needs clarification.

  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 names a specific verb ('读取' meaning 'read') and a precise resource: the meter's cumulative total electricity consumption from online activation through the current date. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_daily_energy which implies a daily scope.

  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 lifetime/date-range semantics are explicit, so an agent can infer this is appropriate when cumulative since-online data is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope language effectively routes around daily or summary siblings.

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