Estimate electricity CO2e (kg) from energy use (kWh) and a regional grid-intensity factor (defaults to the IEA world average). Pure compute; price 0.0 (free).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kWh | Yes | Electricity consumed in kWh (>= 0) | |
| region | No | Grid region (default: global). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the call is 'Pure compute; price 0.0 (free)', implying no side effects or costs. However, it does not mention rate limits, caching, or whether results are deterministic. Given the lack of annotations, the transparency 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?
The description is extremely concise at two sentences, with the primary action and key details front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose, and no redundant information is present.
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?
Despite the lack of an output schema, the description covers the essential return information (CO2e in kg). For a simple computation tool, this is largely sufficient. However, a brief mention of the output format (e.g., single number) 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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the default regional intensity ('defaults to the IEA world average') and specifying the output unit ('CO2e (kg)'), which enhances understanding beyond the schema's enum and type descriptions.
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 verb ('Estimate'), resource ('electricity CO2e'), and key inputs ('kWh', 'region'). It distinguishes itself from sibling carbon tools by specifying 'Pure compute; price 0.0 (free)', indicating it's a simple calculation rather than a real-world API call.
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 electricity emissions estimation but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like carbon_estimate_shipping_emissions or carbon_estimate_travel_emissions. No exclusions or context about prerequisites are mentioned.
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 have clearly distinct purposes, especially the ledger-watch groups with domain prefixes. However, there are near-duplicate utilities such as content_authenticity_domain_reputation and domain_intel_reputation, and fx_tax_convert overlaps with price_oracle_fx_rate/convert. The sheer number of tools also increases the chance of selecting the wrong one, though descriptions are generally clear.
The naming is largely consistent with a <domain>_<action> or <domain>_<watch>_<action> pattern, and all names use snake_case. Minor deviations include standalone names like entity_search, kyb_report, verify_receipt, and the confusing singular/plural pair of sanction_watch_* and sanctions_screen_*. Overall, the pattern is predictable.
With 172 tools, this server is far beyond the typical well-scoped range. It bundles dozens of unrelated utility domains (weather, carbon, CVE, geo, etc.) alongside the Japan public-ledger watches, making it unwieldy for an agent to navigate. This extreme count is a major coherence problem.
For the core Japan public-ledger domain, coverage is excellent: each ledger has search, get, timeline, recent_changes, and verify_ledger, plus cross-ledger entity_search and temporal_query. The unrelated utility areas are also fairly complete for their own purposes, but the server's scope is so broad that some utilities are duplicated (e.g., multiple currency converters). Overall, no critical dead ends in the main domain.