Timeline view of one standard-land point — all observation events with diff, observedAt and chain-hash entries. ledgerVerified is computed end-to-end against IDENTITY_SIGNING_SECRET.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| itemId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses that ledgerVerified is computed against IDENTITY_SIGNING_SECRET, adding a behavioral detail. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits.
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 concise sentences without redundancy. Could potentially incorporate parameter semantics, but the description is well-structured and front-loaded with core functionality.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers output fields (diff, observedAt, chain-hash, ledger verification) but fails to explain the required input. This gap limits the agent's ability to invoke the tool correctly.
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 single parameter 'itemId' (required string) has no description in schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain its meaning or format, leaving the agent without guidance on how to specify the land point.
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?
Description clearly states it provides a timeline view of a single standard-land point, listing observation events with specific fields (diff, observedAt, chain-hash). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like landprice_watch_get or landprice_watch_search.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as landprice_watch_get, recent_changes, or search. The description implies historical context but does not specify exclusions or preferred 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.