Verify the hash-chain integrity of a landprice record (tamper detection). Returns chainValid, brokenAt (if any), checked event count, firstSeenAt and ledgerVerified.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| itemId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return fields (chainValid, brokenAt, etc.) and mentions 'tamper detection', indicating a read-only operation. However, it omits details on error behavior (e.g., invalid itemId), rate limits, authorization needs, or any side effects. The disclosure is adequate but not thorough.
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 long: the first states the core purpose, the second lists key return fields. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and the presence of many sibling verify_ledger tools, the description sufficiently covers the purpose and return values. It lacks details on error handling or input validation, but for a verification tool, the provided info is mostly complete. The absence of an output schema makes the listing of return fields valuable.
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 0% (itemId has no description). The description compensates partially by stating the tool verifies a 'landprice record', implying that itemId identifies that record. It does not explicitly describe the parameter format or constraints, but the context is sufficient for basic understanding. The compensation is moderate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('hash-chain integrity of a landprice record'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling verify_ledger tools which operate on different watch types (e.g., bid_watch_verify_ledger, grant_watch_verify_ledger). The action and scope are unambiguous.
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 states the tool is for tamper detection of landprice records, implying when to use it (to verify integrity). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or provide 'when not to use' guidance. The sibling tools are domain-specific, so the name and description offer implicit differentiation but lack explicit use-case boundaries.
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.