Compute the heat index (feels-like temperature) and risk category from air temperature (Celsius) and relative humidity. Pure compute; price 0.0 (free).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tempC | Yes | Air temperature in degrees Celsius | |
| humidityPct | Yes | Relative humidity percent (0-100) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses no side effects ('Pure compute') and cost, but does not describe output format (e.g., risk category levels) which would help agent anticipate behavior.
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 with no waste. Purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. Ideal length for a simple compute tool.
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 straightforward compute tool with full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. However, noting the risk category output format would improve completeness, but not critical.
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 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds context (mentions heat index and risk category) but does not significantly extend meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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 uses specific verbs ('Compute') and resources ('heat index and risk category') and clearly distinguishes from sibling weather tools by specifying the computation and mentioning it's a free pure compute.
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?
Implies usage via context (heat index computation) but lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools. The 'Pure compute; price 0.0' is informative but not a usage guideline.
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.