Recent appearance / amendment / repeal events across all ordinances since the given ISO8601 timestamp. Each item includes firstSeenAt and ledgerVerified.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| since | Yes | ||
| issuerCode | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions output fields (firstSeenAt, ledgerVerified) which is helpful. However, it does not state that it is read-only, whether pagination works, or any rate limits. The behavior is mostly transparent but lacks depth without annotations.
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 extremely concise: two sentences that serve distinct purposes. First sentence defines the scope and trigger, second adds output detail. No redundant words or repetition. Every sentence earns its place.
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 tool with no output schema and low parameter coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool returns and the key parameter (since). However, it omits details on limit behavior, issuerCode usage, and possible empty results. Given the simplicity of the tool, it's acceptable but not fully complete.
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 coverage is 0%, placing the burden on the description. The description only explains the 'since' parameter as an ISO8601 timestamp. The 'limit' (default 100) and 'issuerCode' (filter) are not described at all. This leaves ambiguity about how parameters affect results, especially the optional filter.
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 returns 'Recent appearance / amendment / repeal events' across all ordinances since a timestamp. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ordinance_watch_get (single entity), ordinance_watch_search (search), and ordinance_watch_timeline (chronological). The verb 'recent changes' combined with parameter 'since' makes the purpose precise.
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 indicates use 'since the given ISO8601 timestamp', which implies polling for new changes. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for historical data or single ordinance lookup) and does not mention alternative tools. The context from sibling names suggests alternatives, but no direct exclusion is given.
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.