Convert a wall-clock datetime (YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM(:SS)?) from one IANA timezone to another using the platform Intl database. Pure/offline; price 0.0 (free).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| toTz | Yes | Target IANA timezone (e.g. Asia/Tokyo) | |
| fromTz | Yes | Source IANA timezone (e.g. America/New_York) | |
| datetime | Yes | Wall-clock datetime, YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM(:SS)? |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is pure/offline, free, and uses the Intl database, which is useful, but it does not disclose output format, error handling, or DST edge cases. The tool appears simple, so this is acceptable as a baseline.
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, tightly constructed sentence that includes the core operation, input format, mechanism (Intl database), and operational properties (pure/offline, free). It is front-loaded and contains no fluff.
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, three-parameter conversion tool with no output schema, the description is adequately complete: it specifies what the tool does, the input format, and the offline/free behavior. It could have explicitly stated the return format, but the conversion output is naturally implied, so it does not detract significantly.
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 description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters already described clearly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only repeating the datetime format and the 'wall-clock' qualifier, so it meets the baseline for high-coverage schemas.
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 action (convert), resource (datetime), and scope (between IANA timezones). It distinguishes itself from sibling holiday calendar tools by focusing on timezone conversion, not holiday calculations.
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 provides clear context for when the tool would be used (any timezone conversion task) and notes it is pure/offline. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, relying on the tool's unique name and sibling context.
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.