Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• confirm_orderC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'confirm order status', which suggests a read operation, but doesn't clarify if this is a safe query, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or details response behavior. This is inadequate for a 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly with zero waste.

  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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'confirm' entails behaviorally, what the return values might be, or how it fits with sibling tools. For a tool with 2 parameters and potential complexity in order processing, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

  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%, so the input schema already documents both parameters ('orderId' and 'language') with descriptions and enum values. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage context, but this is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

  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 states the tool's purpose as 'Confirm order status after payment attempt', which includes a specific verb ('Confirm') and resource ('order status'), but it's somewhat vague about what 'confirm' entails—does it check, update, or finalize status? It doesn't clearly distinguish from siblings like 'validate_payment_response', which might overlap in functionality.

  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 minimal guidance by mentioning 'after payment attempt', implying usage timing, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'validate_payment_response' or 'register_order'. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given, leaving gaps in usage context.

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

• validate_payment_responseC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions 'validate and interpret', which implies a read-only analysis, but doesn't specify whether this tool performs any side effects, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or what the output format might be. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

  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 with just one sentence: 'Validate and interpret payment response status'. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes directly to the purpose statement.

  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 the complexity of validating and interpreting payment responses, the description is incomplete. There are no annotations, no output schema, and the description doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., validation results, status codes, error messages). For a tool that likely processes critical payment data, more context on behavior and outputs is needed to be fully useful.

  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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'response' documented as 'Order confirmation response object'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid response object or how validation and interpretation are applied. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is provided.

  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 states the tool's purpose as 'validate and interpret payment response status', which is clear but somewhat vague. It specifies the action ('validate and interpret') and the resource ('payment response status'), but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'confirm_order' or 'refund_order'. The description could be more specific about what validation and interpretation entails.

  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 are sibling tools like 'confirm_order' and 'refund_order' that might handle related payment operations, but the description doesn't indicate when this validation tool should be invoked versus those alternatives. No context, exclusions, or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

• configure_credentialsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation operation ('configure'), but doesn't specify whether this is a one-time setup, if it overwrites existing credentials, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like authentication changes. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely modifies system state.

  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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 the lack of annotations and output schema, and the tool's likely role in mutating payment credentials, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like security implications, error handling, or what success looks like, which are critical for an agent to use this tool safely and effectively.

  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 both parameters ('userName' and 'password') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or validation rules, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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 states the action ('configure') and the resource ('SATIM payment gateway credentials'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'register_order' or 'validate_payment_response', which might also involve credential handling in some contexts.

  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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing registration first), exclusions, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'register_order', leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.

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

• refund_orderC
  2.9/5.0
  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. 'Process refund' implies a financial mutation, but it doesn't disclose critical traits like required permissions, whether refunds are reversible, rate limits, or what happens if the order isn't completed. This is inadequate for a tool with potential financial impact.

  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 perfectly concise at five words, front-loading the core purpose ('Process refund') without any wasted language. Every word earns its place, making it efficient for quick comprehension by an AI agent.

  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 the tool's complexity (financial mutation with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, return values, error conditions, or usage boundaries, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty about how to invoke it 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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'amountInDA' relates to 'currency') or provide additional context about parameter usage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value added.

  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 states the verb ('Process refund') and resource ('for a completed order'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools like 'confirm_order' or 'register_order' that might also handle order-related operations, which prevents a perfect score.

  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 minimal guidance by specifying 'for a completed order', which implies this tool shouldn't be used for pending or cancelled orders. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use rules, alternatives (e.g., vs. 'confirm_order'), or prerequisites, leaving significant gaps in usage context.

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

• register_orderC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a registration operation but doesn't clarify if this creates a persistent record, initiates a payment, returns a transaction ID, or has side effects like authentication requirements or rate limits. For a payment gateway tool with 13 parameters, this is insufficient.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  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 complex payment gateway tool with 13 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after registration (e.g., returns a payment URL, transaction ID), error conditions, or how it fits with sibling tools like 'configure_credentials'. The agent lacks crucial context for proper usage.

  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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the tool's overall purpose. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score 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.

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the action ('register') and resource ('new order with SATIM payment gateway'), providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'confirm_order' or 'refund_order', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a score of 5.

  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 like 'confirm_order' or 'refund_order'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing configured credentials first, or when this operation is appropriate in a payment workflow.

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