Verify the hash-chain integrity of a program (tamper detection). Returns chainValid, brokenAt (if any), checked event count, firstSeenAt and ledgerVerified.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| programId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the verification process and lists return fields, but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or safety profile. The return value details add some transparency.
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 a single sentence with a clear action followed by a list of return fields. It is concise and front-loaded, with no redundant 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?
For a simple verification tool, the description covers purpose and output but lacks usage context, parameter guidance, and alternative tool mentions. It is minimally adequate but missing important details for effective tool selection.
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?
The sole parameter 'programId' has 0% schema description coverage. The description only mentions 'program' without explaining what constitutes a valid programId or how to obtain it. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's type declaration.
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 verifies hash-chain integrity for tamper detection of a program, specifying the return fields. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools by domain (subsidy watch).
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 like subsidy_watch_get or other verify_ledger tools. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or usage scenarios.
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.