Time-ordered events only for a notice (the differentiator: when it opened, deadline moved, closed, or result was published). Includes firstSeenAt and ledgerVerified.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| itemId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description mentions the tool returns events with fields firstSeenAt and ledgerVerified, suggesting read-only behavior. However, it does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., rate limits, data freshness, error handling when itemId is invalid). Without annotations, more detail would be beneficial.
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?
Description is a single sentence with parenthetical examples, making it efficient. However, the phrase 'the differentiator' is slightly unclear; front-loading key action and separating details could improve clarity. Still, it is appropriately sized.
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?
With one simple parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and returned fields. However, it lacks information about pagination, ordering, date ranges, or any filtering capabilities. Given the simplicity, it is marginally adequate but could be more thorough.
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% – the schema defines one required parameter 'itemId' but provides no description. The tool description does not elaborate on the parameter beyond being an identifier for the notice. No format, example, or constraints are given, so the description adds minimal value for parameter understanding.
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?
Description clearly states 'time-ordered events only for a notice' and lists specific event types (opened, deadline moved, closed, result published). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pubcom_watch_get which likely retrieves current state, and pubcom_watch_recent_changes which covers changes.
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?
Implied usage: use this tool to get a chronological event history for a specific notice. Does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling tool names provide implicit differentiation. Could be improved by directly contrasting with pubcom_watch_get and pubcom_watch_recent_changes.
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.