Search Japanese pharmaceutical approvals (PMDA) and NHI-listed drugs (MHLW yakka). Each hit includes firstSeenAt and ledgerVerified.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | 販売名 / 成分名・部分一致 | |
| since | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| category | No | PMDA分野 (第１ 等) / MHLWセグメント (内用薬 等) | |
| applicant | No | 製造販売業者 / メーカー |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions that results include 'firstSeenAt and ledgerVerified'. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authorization requirements, or whether the operation is read-only. The description carries the full burden but falls short.
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 long, front-loads the core purpose, and avoids redundancy. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second details result contents. No fluff or filler.
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 annotations, output schema, and only 50% parameter coverage, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on parameter usage, search behavior, pagination, error handling, or any other context that would help the agent use the tool correctly.
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 50% (3 of 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema). The tool description does not add meaning to these or other parameters. It only provides a high-level statement, not compensating for the schema gaps.
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 pharmaceutical approvals (PMDA) and NHI-listed drugs (MHLW yakka), specifying the domain and data sources. The verb 'Search' and resource scope are explicit, and it distinguishes from sibling pharma_watch tools (get, timeline, etc.) and other domain-specific search 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit context, exclusions, or prerequisites are mentioned. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and domain 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.