Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• fund.knoewledgeC
  2.6/5.0
  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 only states the action ('get knowledge base list information') without mentioning any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the return format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with parameters and no output schema.

  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 phrase '获取的知识库列表信息', which is concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, it's overly brief and under-specified for a tool with parameters and no output schema, slightly reducing its effectiveness despite the efficient structure.

  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 has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, behavioral context, or usage scenarios, leaving the agent with insufficient information to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results from this tool.

  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 clear documentation for 'kw' (keyword for fuzzy search), 'pageSize' (items per page, default 10), and 'pageNum' (page number, default 1). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 '获取的知识库列表信息' translates to 'Get knowledge base list information', which states the purpose (retrieving a list) but is vague about what 'knowledge base' refers to and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'fund.echo' or 'fund.stock_search'. It provides a basic verb+resource but lacks specificity and sibling differentiation.

  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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fund.stock_search'. The description implies it's for listing knowledge bases, but there's no explicit context, exclusions, or prerequisites mentioned, leaving the agent with no usage direction beyond the basic purpose.

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

• fund.echoC
  2.9/5.0
  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 states the tool echoes a message, implying a simple read-like operation, but doesn't cover traits like side effects, error handling, or performance. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

  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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds context about it being an example interface, which is relevant. It avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

  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, the description is incomplete. It explains the basic function but doesn't address behavioral aspects like what 'echo back' entails (e.g., format, latency) or provide usage context. For a tool with minimal structured data, more descriptive detail is needed.

  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%, so the input schema already documents the single parameter 'message' with its type and description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

  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 tool's purpose: 'Echo back a message.' It specifies the verb ('echo back') and resource ('a message'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'fund.knowledge' or 'fund.stock_search', which likely serve different purposes, so it misses full sibling distinction.

  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 mentions 'Example interface for scaffold,' which implies it's a demo or test tool, but doesn't specify contexts, exclusions, or comparisons to siblings. Without explicit usage rules, the agent lacks direction.

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

• fund.stock_searchC
  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 mentions the API source but doesn't describe rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what happens when no results are found. For a search tool with external API dependencies, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational 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 a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and source. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundant or unnecessary information.

  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, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., stock codes, names, prices), how results are formatted, or any limitations of the API. For a tool with external dependencies and no structured output documentation, more context is needed.

  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 ('input' and 'count') fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 tool's purpose as '搜索股票信息' (search for stock information) with the specific source '基于东方财富API' (based on East Money API). It distinguishes from siblings like 'fund.echo' and 'fund.knoewledge' by focusing on stock search functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools beyond the sibling list provided.

  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 any prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where other tools might be more appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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