Combined media-provenance verdict for an image url: C2PA presence plus the hosting domain reputation, with rationale. Read-only; price 0.0 (free).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Image URL to check |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool is read-only and free (price 0.0), and mentions that rationale is provided. This adequately discloses key behavioral traits for a read-only, non-destructive tool.
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 with two additional short statements, all front-loaded. Every element adds value: the action, the components, the read-only and cost attributes. No wasted words.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, cost, and safety. It does not detail the response format, but the mention of 'rationale' provides some expectation. Overall sufficient for the complexity.
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 a single parameter described as 'Image URL to check'. The description adds context by specifying 'image url' and 'media-provenance verdict', but the schema already provides the essential meaning. The description adds marginal value 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 explicitly states the tool produces a combined media-provenance verdict for an image URL, combining C2PA presence and domain reputation with rationale. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like content_authenticity_c2pa_inspect and content_authenticity_domain_reputation.
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 indicates the tool is read-only and free, but does not explicitly state when to use this combined check versus individual sibling tools. However, the presence of sibling tools and the description's emphasis on 'combined' implies the appropriate use case.
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.