Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• chat_completionsA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Without annotations, the description proactively discloses key behaviors: smart routing vs direct dispatch, the return format (response + routing_meta fields), and streaming unsupported. It could mention error or rate limit behavior, but the provided info is substantial and non-contradictory.

  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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

  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 15 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description only covers the core functionality and response structure. It fails to explain advanced routing features (preference, cost_quality, max_latency) and other common parameters needed for effective use.

  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?

  With schema description coverage at only 40%, many parameters lack explanations. The description only clarifies the 'model' parameter and implicitly sets stream=false. It does not explain parameters like tools, temperature, cost_quality, or max_latency_ms, leaving a significant gap for the agent.

  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 'Send a chat completion request' and the resource 'to GammaInfra' with specific routing logic for model selection. It distinguishes from sibling tools (get_status, list_models, get_balance) which serve different purposes.

  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 explains when to use 'gammainfra/auto' vs pinning a specific model, and explicitly notes that streaming is not supported via MCP. However, it does not provide explicit alternative tools for streaming or when not to use this tool.

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

• list_modelsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the list may change ('today') and states it is a read operation, but it does not mention auth needs, rate limits, or return format. Adequate but not comprehensive.

  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 concise and front-loaded, with two short sentences that cover all essential information without 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?

  For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what models are included and what information they have (pricing, capability flags). It does not describe the exact return format, but the output is implied. Lacks some detail but is mostly complete.

  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 the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds the explicit statement 'No parameters,' which reaffirms but does not significantly add beyond the schema. Baseline is 4.

  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 lists every model on GammaInfra, covering specific providers and meta-models, with pricing and capability flags. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_status, chat_completions, and get_balance.

  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 the tool is for discovering available models, but it does not explicitly provide when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks exclusion guidance.

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

• get_statusA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes what is returned but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or free of side effects. However, the nature of a health check implies safety, so score is adequate but not high.

  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 wasted words. Front-loads the purpose and includes a usage hint. Every sentence 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?

  No output schema, but description fully describes the return values (overall state, per-provider health, request count). For a simple health check tool, this is complete and sufficient.

  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?

  No parameters exist and description explicitly states 'No parameters', matching the schema. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, and the description adds value by confirming this.

  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?

  Clearly states the tool returns GammaInfra's health with specific details (overall state, per-provider health, request count). Distinguishes from sibling tools (chat_completions, list_models, get_balance) which serve different purposes.

  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?

  Explicitly suggests using before long agent loops, providing clear context. No when-not-to or alternative tools mentioned, but sibling tools are sufficiently distinct, so minimal guidance needed.

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

• get_balanceA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the conditional BYOK request, error handling (byok_error), and default behavior (null when omitted). It implies read-only access via 'authenticated customer' and idempotency but could explicitly state that it is a safe read operation.

  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 efficiently convey purpose and parameter behavior with no redundant text. Every sentence adds necessary detail.

  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?

  Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional param, no output schema), the description covers the input behavior and high-level output (balances, BYOK field). It could explicitly mention the response structure (e.g., object with fields like managed_usd, currency, byok_balance_usd) but is adequate for a straightforward read operation.

  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 100% for the single parameter, but the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the effect of include_byok on the response (including BYOK balance, null vs value, error handling).

  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 ('Return') and the resource ('the authenticated customer's GammaInfra balances: managed (USD) and currency'), with a specific scope and differentiation from sibling tools (get_status, chat_completions, list_models).

  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 explains when to use the include_byok parameter and the behavior for both true and false cases. It implicitly states the tool's purpose for balance retrieval but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, which is acceptable given unrelated siblings.

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