Search Japanese research-grant calls-for-proposals. Each hit includes firstSeenAt and ledgerVerified (hash-chain integrity).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| field | No | 研究分野 | |
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| since | No | ||
| funder | No | 配分機関 (JST/AMED/NEDO 等) | |
| status | No | ||
| amountMin | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that results include firstSeenAt and ledgerVerified, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or the absence of mutations. Implies search but lacks explicit safety guarantees.
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 no redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides relevant output detail. Every word adds value, and it is appropriately front-loaded.
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?
Given the tool has 7 parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain search behavior (e.g., pagination, filtering logic, defaults), result structure beyond two fields, or how to use parameters effectively. The agent would lack key context for correct invocation.
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 only 29% (2 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no parameter-level information beyond reiterating the output fields. For undocumented parameters like query, since, status, amountMin, the agent receives no guidance on their meaning or valid values, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 searches Japanese research-grant calls-for-proposals, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like grant_watch_get (by ID) and other domain-specific watch/search tools. It also highlights unique output fields (firstSeenAt, ledgerVerified), adding clarity.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., grant_watch_get, grant_watch_recent_changes). The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
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.