Determine whether an ISO date is a public holiday for a country (US/GB/JP/DE) from a built-in rule-based dataset; returns the holiday name when matched. Pure/offline; price 0.0 (free).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| country | No | ISO 3166 country code (default: US) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is 'Pure/offline' and 'free', and that it 'returns the holiday name when matched'. However, it does not specify the return value when the date is not a holiday, nor the behavior for invalid dates or unsupported countries. Some behavior is disclosed, but not comprehensively.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence delivers the main functionality, and the second sentence adds relevant metadata (pure/offline, free). No redundant information is present, though the price detail could be considered optional.
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?
The description explains the tool's primary behavior and return value when matched, but it lacks an explicit specification of the non-match return value or error handling. Given there is no output schema, this missing detail leaves some ambiguity about the exact response format, making it slightly incomplete for a simple tool.
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 schema already covers both parameters (date and country) with descriptions. The description adds value by explicitly listing the supported countries (US/GB/JP/DE), which is a constraint not present in the schema. This extra detail helps the agent use the tool correctly.
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: determine whether an ISO date is a public holiday for specific countries (US/GB/JP/DE). It uses a specific verb ('Determine') and resource ('ISO date', 'country'), and the mention of a built-in rule-based dataset distinguishes it from sibling tools like holiday_calendar_list_holidays or holiday_calendar_business_days_between.
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 (checking if a date is a holiday) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like holiday_calendar_list_holidays or holiday_calendar_next_business_day. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
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.