Heuristically detect whether an IP belongs to a datacenter/hosting range using bundled CIDR lists. 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 full burden and discloses 'Read-only; price 0.0 (free)' and 'using bundled CIDR lists,' indicating a local heuristic check without side effects or cost. This is useful context, though it stops short of detailing limitations, output format, or false-positive behavior.
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 concise: one action-oriented sentence plus a brief note on read-only and cost. It front-loads the purpose and includes only necessary details, with no redundancy or filler.
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 with one parameter, and the schema fully documents the input. However, there is no output schema and the description does not state what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, score, confidence), which is a meaningful gap for an agent to interpret the result correctly in all contexts.
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 the single parameter 'ip' described as 'IPv4 or IPv6 address.' The description does not add extra meaning beyond confirming the input is an IP address, so it meets the baseline for schema-dominated parameter coverage.
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 what the tool does: 'Heuristically detect whether an IP belongs to a datacenter/hosting range using bundled CIDR lists.' It specifies the verb (detect), resource (IP), and method (bundled CIDR lists), distinguishing it from sibling IP tools like ip_reputation_asn_lookup or ip_reputation_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 purpose implies when to use the tool (when needing to identify datacenter or hosting IPs), but there is no explicit mention of alternatives or exclusions. It does not say when not to use it or how this compares to other IP reputation tools, so guidance is only implied.
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.