Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• query_yeepay_payment_statusC
  2.6/5.0
  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. '查询' (query) implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when querying non-existent orders. For a payment status tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

  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 extremely concise - just 6 Chinese characters that directly state the tool's purpose. There's zero wasted language, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness. The structure is front-loaded with the core function stated immediately.

  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?

  For a payment status query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what information is returned, possible status values, error handling, or integration context. The agent would need to guess about the response format and behavioral characteristics, making this incomplete for practical 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% with the parameter 'orderId' documented as '商户订单号' (merchant order number). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description '查询支付状态工具' (Query payment status tool) states the basic purpose of querying payment status, which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb '查询' (query) and resource '支付状态' (payment status), but doesn't distinguish from its sibling 'create_webpage_yeepay_payment' or provide specific details about what payment system or scope is involved.

  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. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparison with the sibling tool 'create_webpage_yeepay_payment'. The agent must infer usage context solely from the tool name and basic purpose.

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

• create_webpage_yeepay_paymentC
  2.7/5.0
  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 '创建' (create) which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the expected response looks like. This is inadequate for a mutation 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 extremely concise - a single phrase that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero waste or unnecessary verbiage, and it's appropriately sized for what it communicates.

  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?

  For a payment creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or important behavioral aspects. Given the complexity of payment processing and the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more complete context about the operation.

  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 description coverage is 100%, with all parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description '创建移动支付订单工具' translates to 'Create mobile payment order tool', which clearly states the action (create) and resource (mobile payment order). However, it doesn't distinguish from its sibling 'query_yeepay_payment_status' beyond the basic verb difference, and the purpose could be more specific about what type of payment order is being created.

  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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or how it relates to the sibling tool 'query_yeepay_payment_status' for checking payment status after creation.

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