Estimate freight CO2e (kg) from weight, distance and transport mode using embedded GLEC/DEFRA-order emission factors. Pure compute; price 0.0 (free).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | Yes | Freight transport mode. | |
| weightKg | Yes | Shipment weight in kilograms (>= 0) | |
| distanceKm | Yes | Transport distance in kilometres (>= 0) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'Pure compute; price 0.0 (free)' suggesting no side effects, but does not disclose return format, synchronization, or potential limits.
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 filler. Purpose and pricing are front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.
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?
For a simple compute tool with 3 parameters, the description covers purpose, inputs, and pricing. Lacks explicit output format, but output is implied as CO2e in kg.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds the output unit 'kg CO2e' but does not elaborate on each parameter beyond what the schema provides.
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 tool estimates freight CO2e from weight, distance, and mode using standard emission factors. It specifies 'freight' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like carbon_estimate_travel_emissions. The verb 'estimate' and resource 'freight CO2e' are specific.
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 use for freight shipping emissions but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like carbon_estimate_compute_emissions. It mentions being free, but lacks when-not or alternative guidance.
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.