Recent appearance / deadline-move / close / result-published events across all notices since the given ISO8601 timestamp. Each item includes firstSeenAt and ledgerVerified.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| since | Yes | ||
| agency | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns events with fields 'firstSeenAt' and 'ledgerVerified', but does not mention if it is read-only, rate limits, pagination, or whether it modifies state. Basic behavior is clear but not exhaustive.
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, front-loaded with event types and structure. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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 description adequately outlines what the tool returns for its purpose, but lacks detail on the 'agency' parameter and does not mention ordering or pagination. Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral context would improve completeness.
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 has 0% description coverage; the description does not explain the parameters beyond mentioning 'since the given ISO8601 timestamp'. The 'limit' and 'agency' parameters are undocumented in both schema and description, adding no semantic value.
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 the tool returns 'recent appearance / deadline-move / close / result-published events across all notices since a given timestamp'. The verb 'watch recent changes' and resource 'notices' are specific, and the scope 'all notices' distinguishes it from siblings like pubcom_watch_get (single watch) and pubcom_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?
The description implies usage for polling recent changes to all notices. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the scope 'across all notices' gives clear context on its applicability.
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.