Recent appearance / revised events across all real-estate records since the given ISO8601 timestamp. Each item includes firstSeenAt and ledgerVerified.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| since | Yes | ||
| areaCode | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states that items include firstSeenAt and ledgerVerified. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, any rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens if the timestamp is too far back. The behavioral scope is minimal.
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?
Two sentences, both essential: one states the core functionality and the other lists the key output fields. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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?
The description provides some output structure (firstSeenAt, ledgerVerified) but lacks details on pagination, sorting order, or other fields. Without an output schema, more detail would help the agent understand the response format fully.
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 0%. The description only adds meaning for the 'since' parameter (ISO8601 timestamp). The 'limit' and 'areaCode' parameters are not mentioned, leaving their purpose unexplained.
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/revised events for real-estate records since a timestamp, with specific fields (firstSeenAt, ledgerVerified). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like realestate_watch_get (single record), realestate_watch_search (search), realestate_watch_timeline (timeline), and realestate_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 specifies it is for events since a given ISO8601 timestamp, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus search or timeline, nor does it state when not to use it, though the purpose is implicit.
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.