Search Japanese 地価公示 (MLIT 国土数値情報 L01) standard-land snapshots. Each hit is one standard point for a given year, ledgered for tamper-detection. Returns ledgerVerified per hit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | 年度 (e.g. 2026) | |
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | 市区町村名 / 所在 / 利用現況 部分一致 | |
| areaCode | No | 5-digit prefecture+municipality code (e.g. "13101") | |
| registry | No | ||
| prefectureCode | No | JIS X 0401 都道府県コード (e.g. "13") |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses ledger verification and tamper-detection, but with no annotations, it omits auth, rate limits, or destructive potential. Searches are read-only, but this is not explicit.
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?
Two sentences efficiently convey purpose and a key behavioral trait. No wasted words.
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?
Adequate for a search tool, but no output schema means description should clarify return fields beyond ledgerVerified. Could mention pagination or error conditions.
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 67%; description adds no new parameter details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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?
Clearly states the tool searches Japanese land price snapshots from a specific dataset (MLIT L01), specifies ledger verification, and distinguishes from other watch tools.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling watch tools like bid_watch_search or grant_watch_search. No mention of prerequisites or scenarios.
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.