Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• tempo_insightsB
  3.3/5.0
  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 does disclose the extractive nature and that it separates facts from inferred themes, which is genuinely useful. However, it fails to mention anything about authentication requirements (the sibling tempo_auth_status hints auth is a real concern), output format, failure modes for non-Tempo URLs, or whether it caches results. For a tool that processes external URLs, these are material gaps.

  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?

  A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the primary action and then enumerates the output artifacts. No wasted words, and the extractive/facts-vs-inference clause earns its place by adding behavioral nuance. It is concise without being terse.

  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?

  The description covers the tool's purpose and output structure well, but with no annotations and no output schema, an agent has to infer the return shape, error behavior (e.g., what happens for non-Tempo URLs or paywalled content), and whether auth is required. For a tool that ingests an external URL and produces a multi-part brief, these operational details matter. The facts-vs-inference separation is a nice touch but doesn't compensate for missing auth and error semantics.

  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 only 33%. The description names the focus parameter's purpose indirectly through the research-brief concept, but it doesn't explain what 'focus' does mechanically (narrow the extraction? bias the output structure?) beyond the example lens. The url parameter is obvious from the description ('Tempo.co article'), and include_source_text is self-explanatory from its boolean type. The description adds marginal context but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap on 'focus'.

  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?

  States a specific verb ('Turn into a research brief'), a clear resource (Tempo.co article), and enumerates the output structure (executive summary, key claims, named entities, timeline signals, etc.). It also distinguishes itself by characterizing its approach as 'extractive' with an explicit facts-vs-inference separation, which is unique among the listed 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?

  No guidance on when to use this tool versus tempo_article, tempo_compare, or tempo_search. An agent cannot tell from the description whether it should run tempo_insights or tempo_article for a single article, or whether tempo_compare handles multi-article comparison. Sibling names suggest the comparison tool exists, but the description never mentions alternatives or exclusions.

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

• tempo_searchA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are 'candidates' with specific fields, but it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., read-only nature), authentication requirements (given sibling tempo_auth_status exists), or pagination/result limits beyond the schema. It provides some behavioral context but leaves gaps.

  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 two sentences, clear, and front-loaded with the main purpose. It avoids redundancy and includes only relevant information about what is returned. No filler or excessive detail.

  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?

  For a simple search tool, the description covers the query and return fields, but it lacks critical context such as authentication prerequisites (sibling tempo_auth_status implies auth may be needed) and any pagination or limit behavior. It does not mention sorting or how results are ordered, which an agent might need to know. Essential enough to score a 3, but not complete.

  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 covers 'query' with a description, but 'limit' has no description and the tool description does not mention either parameter. The description adds no value beyond the schema for the query parameter and fails to compensate for the undocumented limit parameter. Since schema coverage is 50% (not low, but not high), the description should at least reference the limit behavior; it does not.

  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 states a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('Tempo.co reporting'), and what it returns (article candidates with fields). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like tempo_article (likely retrieval of a specific article) and tempo_insights (likely analysis), so an agent can tell it apart without inspecting other tools.

  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 when you have a query, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling names suggest tempo_article is for specific article retrieval, but the description does not state 'use tempo_article when you have a direct URL' or similar exclusions. Guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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

• tempo_articleA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool fetches and returns data, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state whether it is safe, requires authentication (given the presence of tempo_auth_status), or has any side effects or limitations (e.g., only public articles). This lack of behavioral disclosure is a 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?

  Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the function, and the second gives a clear usage directive. Information is front-loaded and every word is purposeful.

  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?

  The tool is relatively simple (one required param) and the description covers the main purpose and a usage hint. However, it lacks an output schema and does not mention behavioral constraints like authentication (despite the existence of tempo_auth_status), error handling, or any caveats about availability of public articles. An agent might not know if it needs to call tempo_auth_status first or what specific metadata fields to expect. So it is adequate but not complete.

  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 already describes the url and include_media parameters, providing 67% coverage. The description adds a general sense of the output ('clean text plus normalized metadata') but does not elaborate on the parameters beyond what the schema provides. The include_body parameter lacks a schema description, and the tool description doesn't compensate for that either. Minimal added value over the 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 states a specific verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('one public Tempo.co article'), and the output ('clean text plus normalized metadata'). It also hints at a relationship with 'deep insight' (likely tempo_insights), which helps disambiguate from siblings.

  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 says 'Use this before requesting a deep insight for a particular URL', which tells the agent when to use this tool relative to tempo_insights. It does not list other alternatives like tempo_search or tempo_compare, but it provides clear usage context for the primary workflow.

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

• tempo_auth_statusA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that it does not expose secrets, which is a useful behavioral safety note. However, it does not mention potential side effects (though there likely are none), error behavior, or whether it makes any network calls. The security disclaimer adds value, but for a tool with zero annotations, more explicit behavioral context would be expected.

  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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Report whether optional subscriber authentication headers are configured') followed by a valuable safety qualifier ('Does not expose secrets'). Every word earns its place; no fluff.

  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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential information an agent needs: what the tool reports and a critical security property. It is complete for a status-check tool, with no obvious gaps.

  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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning since there are none. It correctly focuses on the tool's purpose without unnecessary parameter discussion.

  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 a specific verb 'Report' and a precise object 'whether optional subscriber authentication headers are configured for Tempo fetches.' It clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes itself from siblings like tempo_search and tempo_article, which perform different operations. Even without reading the schema, an agent can tell this is a status check.

  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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It implies it is a read-only status check, but does not state conditions for invocation, such as 'call this before attempting authenticated fetches' or 'use when you need to verify configuration.' Lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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

• tempo_compareA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes what the comparison highlights, which is useful, but does not disclose any constraints like authentication requirements, potential latency, or failure modes. The tool appears to be read-only, but this is not explicitly stated. It is not misleading but lacks depth on behavioral traits.

  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 with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by a use-case example. Every word earns its place.

  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 the tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, range, and use case, but omits details about the focus parameter and any prerequisites (e.g., whether URLs must be publicly accessible). An agent could likely call the tool correctly but might not understand the full scope of the focus lens or output 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%; the focus parameter's description ('Optional comparison lens') is vague. The tool description clarifies that the urls parameter should contain article URLs, but it does not elaborate on the focus parameter or its possible values. It adds some meaning to urls but falls short of compensating for the gap on focus.

  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 verb ('Compare'), the resource ('Tempo.co articles'), and the scope (2–5 articles). It also lists specific outputs (shared entities, repeated facts, framing, chronology, gaps) and is distinct from sibling tools that search, fetch single articles, or provide insights.

  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 gives clear context with 'Useful for tracking a developing story' but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like tempo_search or tempo_insights. It implies use when multiple articles exist for comparison, but lacks explicit exclusion criteria or mentions of alternative conditions. Slightly above baseline.

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