Recent appearance / amendment / repeal events across all ordinances since the given ISO8601 timestamp. Each item includes firstSeenAt and ledgerVerified.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| since | Yes | ||
| issuerCode | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description discloses return fields (firstSeenAt, ledgerVerified) and event types, indicating a read-only operation. However, it does not mention pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. Without annotations, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
Concise two-sentence description: first states the action, second lists key fields. No redundant information, easy to scan.
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?
Description partially explains the output (fields) but omits details on pagination, default limit behavior, or the full response shape. With no output schema, more detail would be beneficial for accurate use.
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 0%—the description alludes to 'since' (ISO8601 timestamp) but does not name or explain the 'limit' or 'issuerCode' parameters. Parameter meaning is largely left to the schema, which provides minimal context beyond defaults and format.
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 the tool returns recent appearance, amendment, and repeal events across ordinances, specifying an ISO8601 timestamp filter and included fields. This distinguishes it from sibling watch tools for other domains.
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 like ordinance_watch_get, ordinance_watch_search, or ordinance_watch_timeline. The description implies broad monitoring ('across all ordinances') but lacks direct comparisons.
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.