Parse a CVSS v3.0/3.1 vector string into base score, severity and per-metric labels. Fully deterministic; no network I/O; price 0.0 (free).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vector | Yes | CVSS v3.0/3.1 vector string |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behavioral traits: it is fully deterministic, makes no network I/O, and is free. This gives the agent confidence about safety and side-effect-free execution. It does not detail error handling or edge cases, but for a pure parse function the key behaviors are covered.
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 two sentences, with the primary action in the first sentence and supplemental behavioral details in the second. It is front-loaded, concise, and free of unnecessary words, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's purpose.
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 single-parameter parse tool, the description provides enough context: it specifies the input type (CVSS v3.0/3.1 vector string), the outputs, and the deterministic no-I/O nature. It does not include examples or error handling, but those are less critical given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema. It is adequately complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.
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 input schema has a single parameter 'vector' with a description that covers 100% of the schema. The main description adds the context of what the parsing produces (base score, severity, metric labels) but does not elaborate on the vector format, accepted patterns, or examples. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies, and the description provides marginal added value without fully compensating for omitted format details.
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's function with a specific verb ('Parse') and resource ('CVSS v3.0/3.1 vector string'), and specifies the outputs ('base score, severity and per-metric labels'). This distinguishes it from sibling CVE tools like cve_lookup_get_cve or cve_lookup_search_cve, which fetch or search for CVE data rather than parse a vector string.
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 when to use the tool: when you have a CVSS v3.0/3.1 vector string and need to extract its components. The deterministic, no-network-I/O, and free aspects suggest it is a lightweight local operation. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state exclusions, so usage guidance is somewhat implicit.
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.