Classify an IPv4/IPv6 address into special-use categories (public, private, loopback, link-local, CGNAT, reserved, etc.) from bundled IANA special-use ranges. Pure; 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 full burden. It adds useful context: 'Pure' (no side effects), price 0.0 (free), and 'bundled IANA special-use ranges' (data source). It does not describe the return format, but the behavior is simple and adequately disclosed.
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 two sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence efficiently adds cost and purity 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?
For a simple single-parameter tool, the description provides purpose, categories, data source, and pricing. It does not specify the exact return structure, but that is inferable from the classification purpose, and no output schema exists to supplement.
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?
The only parameter 'ip' is fully documented in the schema as 'IPv4 or IPv6 address', and the description repeats this without adding extra meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies.
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 classifies IPv4/IPv6 addresses into specific special-use categories (public, private, loopback, etc.) from IANA ranges. This verb+resource pairing is specific and distinguishes it from sibling ip_reputation tools like ASN lookup or risk score.
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 implies usage for special-use classification but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No sibling tools are referenced, so the guidance is merely implied rather than explicit.
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.