Detect whether an email local-part is a role/group account (e.g. info, support, admin) against a bundled list. Accepts a full email address or a bare localPart. Pure; price 0.0 (free).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | Email address (its local-part is used) | ||
| localPart | No | Local-part only (used if email is omitted) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is 'Pure' and 'free', suggesting no side effects and no cost, and that it uses a bundled list (no external calls). However, 'Pure' is ambiguous and the description does not clarify permissions, rate limits, or return behavior, making transparency moderate.
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 concise sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and examples provided. The extra input/cost details are minimal and relevant, with no fluff or excessive detail.
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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does and accepted inputs, but it omits the return format (e.g., boolean or score) and any limitations of the bundled list. Given no annotations or output schema, this is a notable gap, though the tool's simplicity keeps it from being severely incomplete.
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 description coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter texts for both email and localPart. The description adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already explains (that email's local-part is used, and localPart is used if email is omitted), so it doesn't improve on the baseline.
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 uses a specific verb ('Detect') and clearly identifies the resource (email local-part as role/group account) against a bundled list. It distinguishes itself from sibling email verification tools like email_verify_check_mx and email_verify_detect_disposable by naming a distinct check purpose.
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 purpose is clear but no explicit when-to-use or alternative recommendations are given. The description implies usage for role-account detection, but it doesn't state when not to use it or how it compares to other email verification tools beyond the specific function.
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.