Timeline view of one standard-land point — all observation events with diff, observedAt and chain-hash entries. ledgerVerified is computed end-to-end against IDENTITY_SIGNING_SECRET.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| itemId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'ledgerVerified is computed end-to-end against IDENTITY_SIGNING_SECRET,' but does not clarify idempotency, side effects, authentication requirements, or output format. This provides only minimal insight into how the tool behaves.
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 and mostly front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence about ledgerVerified is somewhat tangential but brief. It is concise, though it could be more streamlined by integrating the verification detail less prominently.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description explains the content of the timeline (observation events with specific fields) but does not describe the output structure, pagination, error conditions, or how to use ledgerVerified. It provides adequate context for a simple retrieval but leaves notable gaps.
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 only parameter, itemId, is required but has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description says 'one standard-land point,' implying itemId identifies the point, but does not specify its format, source, or validation rules. This adds little meaning beyond the parameter name.
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 it provides a 'timeline view' of 'one standard-land point' including observation events with specific fields (diff, observedAt, chain-hash). This distinguishes it from siblings like landprice_watch_get (current state) and landprice_watch_search (find points), and the name already differentiates from other watch timeline tools.
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 retrieving history of a single land price point but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get or search. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the use case.
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.