jpverify_guideFree. Returns the JPVerify tool catalog with prices, use_when guidance and example inputs, plus how x402 payment works; pass a natural-language question to get the single recommended tool and suggested input. / 無料。JPVerifyのツール一覧（料金・用途・入力例）とx402決済方法を返します。質問を渡すと最適なツールと入力例を返します。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| question | No | Optional task description, e.g. 'Is T1013301046627 a valid invoice number?' / 任意の質問。 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by stating the tool is free and describing what the response contains, but it says nothing about rate limits, auth requirements, or catalog freshness.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The lead word 'Free.' is front-loaded and the two modes are described in one compact sentence. The full bilingual restatement doubles the length, which is defensible for the audience but is still redundant text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so for both modes. For a zero-required-parameter discovery tool, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single optional question parameter is already documented with an example. The description still adds meaning by explaining the effect of supplying a question (a single recommended tool plus suggested input) versus omitting it (the full catalog).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific resource (the JPVerify tool catalog) and states exactly what it returns: prices, use_when guidance, example inputs, and how x402 payment works. It also covers the second mode, where a natural-language question yields the single recommended tool plus suggested input, which clearly separates it from the sibling verification/extraction tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives clear context for both modes: call with no question to browse the catalog, or pass a question to get one recommended tool. It does not explicitly say when to skip this tool and call a sibling directly, so the routing guidance is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.