Search Japanese real-estate transaction prices (MLIT reinfolib XIT001). Each hit is a single trade snapshot, ledgered for tamper-detection. Includes firstSeenAt and ledgerVerified.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | 地区名 / 物件種別 / 都道府県名・部分一致 | |
| period | No | "YYYY-QN" (e.g. "2024-Q1") | |
| areaCode | No | JIS X 0401 都道府県コード (e.g. "13") | |
| priceType | No | "transaction" (Stage 1) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that results are ledgered for tamper-detection and include firstSeenAt and ledgerVerified fields. However, it does not explain mutation, pagination, or rate limits, and there are no annotations to supplement.
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 concise (two sentences), front-loads the purpose, and adds relevant details without superfluous information.
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 covers the data source and hit structure, but omits usage context, pagination, and result interpretation. For a search tool with 5 parameters, more detail would be beneficial.
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?
Parametric coverage in schema is 80%, but the description adds no additional meaning to any parameter (e.g., how to use query, period, areaCode). It could have provided context on combining parameters or default behavior.
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 searches Japanese real-estate transaction prices from a specific dataset, and mentions key features (ledgered, timestamps). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like realestate_watch_get or realestate_watch_recent_changes.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.
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.