Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• catalog_statsB
  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 full burden. It mentions returning specific fields but does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, rate limits, or authentication requirements).

  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 a single concise sentence. While efficient, it could be improved by starting with a clear verb (e.g., 'Returns operational stats...') for better structure.

  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?

  With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about the returned data structure. Listing fields is helpful, but it is minimal and does not explain whether it's a single object or array, or any other details.

  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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline score of 4 applies.

  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 identifies the tool as providing operational stats and lists key fields, making its purpose understandable. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', which slightly reduces clarity.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling tools have different purposes, the description does not help the agent decide when this stats tool is appropriate.

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

• verify_licenseA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool operates offline, checks signature, and returns license terms. However, it does not mention any side effects, error handling, or authentication requirements. It is adequate but lacks detail for a fully transparent description.

  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, no filler, directly stating purpose and output. Every word earns its place. Highly concise and well-structured.

  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?

  Given no output schema, the description hints at the return value but does not specify its structure (e.g., boolean or object). Parameters are partially explained. For a simple tool with two params and no output schema, it is minimally viable but could be more complete by describing the return format and certificate format.

  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 50% (only expectKid has a description). The tool description adds context that the certificate is a 'license certificate' and that verification involves checking signature and terms, but it does not specify the certificate format or provide additional meaning beyond the schema. The compensation is partial.

  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 verifies a license certificate offline, checking for valid signature and extracting terms. The verb 'verify' and resource 'license certificate' are specific, and the offline aspect distinguishes it from sibling tools like quote_license or license_track.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies offline verification, but it does not mention exclusions or provide context for choosing this over siblings. No prerequisites or when-not-to-use are stated.

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

• quote_licenseA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided; the description states it 'gets' a quote, suggesting a read-only operation, but does not explicitly disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or rate limits. It is adequate but could be more transparent.

  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 concise sentences that immediately state the purpose and the key output. No wasted 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?

  The description covers the tool's purpose, output (quoteId), and relation to sibling tool 'license_track'. With no output schema and no annotations, it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand usage, though some details like response format are missing.

  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 input schema has 50% description coverage (only 'usage' has a description). The tool description adds context by noting 'for a given usage', but does not provide additional specifics about 'trackId' format or constraints. It partially compensates for the schema 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 explicitly states 'Get a price quote and x402 payment requirements to license a specific track for a given usage', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'license_track' by noting that it returns a quoteId to pass to that tool.

  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 implies usage before 'license_track' by stating it returns a quoteId to pass to that tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context of siblings makes the purpose clear.

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

• search_tracksA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns previews (not licensed assets) and includes metadata and estimated price. It implies read-only behavior. Could mention more about real-time or caching, but sufficient for a search tool.

  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, front-loaded with purpose and key behavioral constraint. Every word adds value, no fluff.

  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?

  Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers purpose and preview behavior but lacks details on parameter usage, return structure, and query complexity guidance.

  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 50% (3 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no extra parameter information beyond hinting at 'mood words, instruments, use' for the text parameter. This does not compensate for the gaps in 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's action ('Search') and resource ('rights catalog for music an agent is allowed to license'). It differentiates from siblings by specifying it returns candidate tracks, not stats or license actions.

  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 explicitly states that results are previews only and that a paid license is needed via 'license_track', implying when to use the tool (search) and when not (for licensed assets). However, it lacks explicit mention of alternatives or when to not use the tool.

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

• license_trackA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Discloses key behavior: funds settle only after fair exchange (asset + certificate bound to payment). Returns deliverable and certificate. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden and meets it well.

  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?

  Three sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, then details. No redundancy or unnecessary words. Efficient and clear.

  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?

  Describes return values (asset and certificate) despite no output schema. Lacks discussion of error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., existing valid quote). Given sibling tools, fits workflow well but could be slightly more comprehensive.

  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 coverage is 50% (payment described, quoteId not). Description adds context for payment (real vs sim network) and repeats schema info. Provides meaningful addition but could elaborate on quoteId's purpose or format.

  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 clearly states it completes a license by paying a quote, with specific verb 'complete' and resource 'license'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'quote_license' which generates quotes, by specifying it finalizes payment and returns asset and certificate.

  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 concrete guidance on passing quoteId and payment, with distinction between real and sim networks (omit payment on sim). Does not explicitly exclude alternatives but context makes it clear this is the final step after quoting.

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