Search Japanese 地価公示 (MLIT 国土数値情報 L01) standard-land snapshots. Each hit is one standard point for a given year, ledgered for tamper-detection. Returns ledgerVerified per hit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | 年度 (e.g. 2026) | |
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | 市区町村名 / 所在 / 利用現況 部分一致 | |
| areaCode | No | 5-digit prefecture+municipality code (e.g. "13101") | |
| registry | No | ||
| prefectureCode | No | JIS X 0401 都道府県コード (e.g. "13") |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses ledgering for tamper-detection and that each hit returns ledgerVerified, which is key behavioral information for a search tool. With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does well to highlight data integrity features. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication, or pagination behavior.
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, front-loading the main purpose and adding key details about ledgering and return value. Every sentence adds value; there is no extraneous information.
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 absence of output schema and annotations, the description leaves out details like return format, pagination handling, and parameter interaction (e.g., AND/OR logic). It mentions ledgerVerified but not other possible fields. While it covers the core purpose, it is incomplete for a search tool with 6 parameters.
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 already describes 4 of 6 parameters (year, query, areaCode, prefectureCode) with full descriptions. The tool description does not add any parameter semantics beyond the schema. With 67% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; no additional meaning is provided for limit or registry.
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 地価公示 standard-land snapshots, specifying the data source (MLIT 国土数値情報 L01) and that each hit is a standard point for a given year with ledger verification. This distinguishes it from siblings like landprice_watch_get (single point) and landprice_watch_verify_ledger (verification).
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 searching land price snapshots but does not explicitly differentiate when to use this tool versus alternatives like landprice_watch_get (for single point retrieval) or landprice_watch_timeline (for historical changes). No 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance is 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.