Look up origin ASN, network name, prefix and country for an IP via Team Cymru origin lookup (DoH) plus RDAP. Read-only; price 0.0 (free).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes | IPv4 or IPv6 address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does disclose 'Read-only' and 'price 0.0 (free)', which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not mention potential failure behavior (e.g., missing data for some IPs), rate limits, or reliance on external services beyond naming the data sources. The read-only and free statements add value but do not fully cover behavioral expectations.
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, information-dense sentence plus a short 'Read-only; price 0.0 (free)' clause. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word adds value without redundancy.
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?
The tool is simple: one parameter, no output schema. The description explicitly lists the returned data fields (origin ASN, network name, prefix, country), which compensates for the missing output schema. It could mention not-found behavior or data freshness, but for a low-complexity lookup this is sufficiently 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 description coverage is 100% (the 'ip' parameter is described as 'IPv4 or IPv6 address'). The description adds no further parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 starts with a specific verb 'Look up' and names the exact outputs: origin ASN, network name, prefix, and country. It also specifies the method (Team Cymru origin lookup via DoH plus RDAP), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ip_reputation_risk_score or ip_reputation_classify_ip.
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?
Usage context is implied through the listed outputs (ASN, network name, prefix, country), but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of sibling IP reputation tools, nor any exclusions or alternative tool references. The description's method details ('via Team Cymru...') gives some context but no direct comparison.
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.