Extract a normalized product (name, price, currency, availability, brand, GTIN, ...) from Schema.org / JSON-LD markup. Provide a url to fetch or raw html. Read-only; price 0.0 (free).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Product page URL to fetch (one of url / html) | |
| html | No | Raw page HTML to parse (one of url / html) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes the tool as read-only and free, and specifies it works on Schema.org/JSON-LD markup. No annotations present, so description carries the burden. Could mention what happens if no markup is found, but core behaviors are disclosed.
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 concise sentences with no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose and key details (input type, cost). 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?
Lacks details on output format or response structure (no output schema). While it lists example fields, it doesn't specify whether extraction returns all fields or only those present, or behavior on errors (e.g., missing markup). Adequate for a simple tool but incomplete for robust usage.
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% for the two parameters (url, html). Description adds minimal extra context: 'Provide a url to fetch or raw html' reiterates the schema's 'one of' constraint. No additional format or constraint details beyond schema.
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?
Clearly states the tool extracts normalized product data (name, price, currency, etc.) from Schema.org/JSON-LD markup. Verb 'extract' and resource 'product' are specific. Distinguishes from sibling commerce tools which deal with availability, validation, or price comparison.
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?
Explicitly says to provide a URL to fetch or raw HTML, indicating how to invoke. Declares read-only and free pricing. However, lacks guidance on when to use versus alternatives or when not to use.
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.