Time-ordered events only for a license registration (the differentiator: when it appeared, when it was revoked / expired / suspended). Includes 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 must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions included fields (firstSeenAt, ledgerVerified) but does not state if the operation is read-only, safe, or any side effects. It lacks information on authentication, rate limits, or pagination 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 one sentence with a brief tag, highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and differentiator, though it could benefit from a bit more structure without becoming verbose.
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 has one parameter and no output schema. The description mentions it returns time-ordered events and includes two fields, but does not describe the full output structure, required permissions, or prerequisites. It is adequate but has clear gaps in providing a complete picture.
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%, meaning parameter descriptions are empty. The description mentions 'for a license registration' but does not explicitly map itemId to the license registration ID or describe its format. This is insufficient for a single parameter tool.
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 it provides time-ordered events for a license registration, listing specific event types (appearance, revocation, expiry, suspension). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like license_watch_get and license_watch_recent_changes by focusing on the timeline.
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 explicitly calls out the 'differentiator'—it is for timeline events, not current state or changes. This gives clear context for when to use this tool, though it does not provide explicit when-not or alternative tool names.
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.