Register an agent and get a unique identity ID + issuer-signed badge. agent_name/metadata are self-reported and unverified.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| metadata | No | ||
| agentName | Yes | ||
| publicKey | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly discloses that agent_name and metadata are self-reported and unverified. However, it omits other behavioral aspects such as whether the tool is idempotent, what happens on duplicate agentName, or response structure.
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?
Two sentences, no unnecessary words. The key information is front-loaded: the action and output, then the caveat about data verification.
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?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and the presence of 3 parameters (one required, with nested object), the description is insufficient. It does not specify the return format, parameter roles for publicKey, or any preconditions/errors.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify each parameter. It only mentions agentName and metadata (noting they are self-reported) but omits the publicKey parameter entirely. It does not explain the metadata object structure or constraints.
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 clearly states the action (register an agent) and the result (unique identity ID + issuer-signed badge). It distinguishes from siblings like agent_identity_lookup by focusing on creation. The note about self-reported and unverified data adds specificity.
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?
The description implies when to use (to register an agent) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. Given the sibling tools, an agent might benefit from knowing that agent_identity_lookup is for retrieval, but this is not 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.
Most tools are clearly distinguished by domain prefixes (e.g., bid_watch, grant_watch) and specific action verbs. However, the high number of similarly structured watch tools could still cause confusion, though descriptions clarify exact purposes.
Every tool follows a consistent `domain_subdomain_action` pattern with underscores, e.g., `agent_audit_query`, `bid_watch_search`. Even long names like `commerce_catalog_agent_readiness_score` adhere to this structure.
With 147 tools, the server is far too broad, covering weather, carbon estimates, domain intel, and more—well beyond its stated 'Japan public-data ledgers' scope. This sheer volume overwhelms agents and dilutes focus.
The server offers many read-only tools for Japanese public data (bids, grants, licenses, etc.), but lacks create/update/delete operations for those domains. Additionally, numerous unrelated tools (e.g., carbon estimates, weather) feel tacked on, leaving gaps in core coverage.