Best-effort watermark and provenance-marker detection from the raw image bytes (e.g. C2PA / IPTC / XMP markers). Provide an image url. Read-only; price 0.0 (free).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Image URL to inspect |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses best-effort behavior and read-only nature, but does not detail failure modes, rate limits, or authentication needs. More context on what happens when markers are not found would be helpful.
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 extremely concise, using two sentences to convey purpose, required input, and safety/cost. Every sentence adds value, and the key info is front-loaded.
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 purpose, required input, and behavioral traits (best-effort, read-only, free). It lacks a brief note on the likely return format (e.g., list of detected markers), but overall it is quite complete.
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 'url' described as 'Image URL to inspect'. The description adds context about 'raw image bytes', providing slight additional meaning. Baseline is 3 since schema already covers the parameter well.
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's function: best-effort detection of watermark and provenance markers (C2PA/IPTC/XMP) from an image URL. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like content_authenticity_c2pa_inspect by being broader and lighter.
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 specifies that the user should provide an image URL and notes the tool is read-only and free. While it implies context for use, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like c2pa_inspect or ai_likelihood.
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.