Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• verify_web_fieldA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already mark this readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it 'independently re-fetches the page and never trusts the fetch you were given,' explains the structural guarantee that a judge 'can only veto a pass, never create one,' and discloses that 'anything unconfirmed returns unverifiable, never pass.' It also covers signing, verdict_id, engine digest, server-rendered scope, and cost. No contradiction with annotations.

  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?

  Although long, every sentence carries distinct information: purpose, non-retrieval nature, when to use, independent refetch guarantee, judge veto, unverifiable fallback, signature details, scope, and pricing. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the structure moves logically from what it does to how to use it to its guarantees and limitations.

  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?

  For a tool with a nested claim object and an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains behavior, guarantees, failure modes, signature verification via get_verifier_info, scope limitations, and even pricing/payment. The output schema handles return-value structure, so the description does not need to repeat that, and nothing essential for calling the tool correctly appears to be missing.

  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 clear parameter descriptions for url, claim, and asked, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some framing—the claim is a value you already possess and the tool does not fetch data for you—but it does not add significant parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

  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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Checks whether a value you did not fetch yourself is actually on the source page right now' and clarifies it 'returns a signed pass/fail/unverifiable verdict.' It clearly separates itself from retrieval tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool verify_presence, so it stops just short of full 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 Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description gives explicit usage context: 'Use it when you hold a value that came from somewhere else...' and states what it is not: 'Not a retrieval tool.' It also gives scope limitations ('JS-only content returns unverifiable'). However, it never mentions when to prefer verify_presence instead, so exclusion guidance is incomplete.

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

• get_verifier_infoA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the operation is free, the returned key enables offline verification of every verdict, and no runtime trust in the service is required. This materially informs an agent's trust and ordering decisions.

  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 front-loaded with 'Free' and the return-value summary, followed by the use-case guidance. It is slightly redundant in explaining offline verification twice, but every sentence earns its place and there is no clutter.

  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?

  For a zero-parameter, read-only metadata tool with no output schema, the description provides a complete picture: what is returned, why to call it first, and what guarantees it supports. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

  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 parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, which is unnecessary here; the baseline of 4 applies.

  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 specific resource (verifier trust info) and enumerates exactly what is returned: public key, engine version, benchmark summary with sample-size labels, and scope. It also distinguishes this tool from the sibling verification tools by framing it as the offline-trust prerequisite rather than a field/presence check.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this first if your selection policy requires evidence before trusting a verification provider.' It also explains why it should precede reliance on verdicts, making the relationship to the actual verification tools clear even without naming them.

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

• verify_presenceA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description complements them without contradiction. It discloses that the tool 'Never returns pass,' that verdicts are 'present, fail, or unverifiable, signed, with check_type web_field_presence_v1,' and that unrelated page values like a was-price or shipping cost can satisfy presence. This significantly clarifies the open-world behavior and result semantics.

  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 information-dense but well organized, leading with the core distinction and then layering verdicts, use cases, alternatives, scope, and cost. Every sentence contributes decision-relevant detail without repetition or filler.

  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 output schema exists and the annotations already cover safety and open-world behavior, the description covers the remaining essentials: purpose, verdict vocabulary, when to use, when not to use, alternative tool, scope, and cost. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

  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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by scoping url to server-rendered pages and clarifying that claim is verified for appearance rather than correctness, which directly informs how to populate the parameters. This lifts it slightly above the baseline.

  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 opens with 'Presence only: confirms the value appears on the page, NOT that it is the right answer to what was asked,' giving a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also explicitly names verify_web_field as the alternative for answer-level checks, making sibling differentiation immediate and unambiguous.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('cheap screen before a full check, or when you already know what the value means') and when not to ('If your decision depends on the value being the right value, call verify_web_field instead'). It also adds a scope constraint (server-rendered pages) and cost context, leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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