Fetch a company profile (name, status, incorporation / dissolution dates, type, address) by jurisdiction + company number via OpenCorporates. Read-only; price 0.0 (free).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jurisdiction | Yes | Jurisdiction code (e.g. gb, us_de) | |
| companyNumber | Yes | Registry company number |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Read-only; price 0.0 (free)', which covers safety and cost, but lacks details on rate limits, data freshness, supported jurisdictions, or error handling.
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 description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose, required inputs, and key attributes (read-only, free). No extraneous information.
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 no output schema, the description includes a list of returned fields (name, status, dates, type, address) and the data source (OpenCorporates), which is adequate for a simple fetch tool. However, it could mention expected response format or limitations.
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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description merely reiterates 'jurisdiction' and 'company number' without adding new semantic meaning beyond the 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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Fetch', the resource 'company profile', and lists specific fields (name, status, dates, type, address). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `company_registry_search_company` by requiring a jurisdiction and company number.
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 implicitly indicates usage when a jurisdiction and company number are known, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like `company_registry_search_company` for unknown numbers or `company_registry_jurisdiction_info` for jurisdiction data.
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.