Japan Corporate Filings MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states that the tool retrieves a list of filings on a given date, but omits details such as whether results are ordered, pagination behavior beyond max_results, response format, or rate limits. For a read operation, more transparency is expected.

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 short sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides usage context. There is no extraneous information; 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?

The tool is relatively simple (get filings by date), and the schema covers parameters well. However, with no output schema, the description does not explain what the returned list contains (e.g., document IDs, filer names, etc.) or how pagination works beyond max_results. Adequate but leaves some unknowns for an agent.

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 100%: each parameter has a descriptive comment (date format, doc_type enum, max_results bounds). The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond the schema, achieving the baseline score.

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 verb (get), the resource (list of all disclosure documents), and the scope (submitted on a specified date). It also provides concrete use cases such as monitoring large shareholding reports and comprehensive financial disclosure checks. The tool distinguishes itself from the sibling 'search_filings' by focusing on date-specific bulk retrieval.

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 gives explicit use cases (watching large shareholding reports, checking financial disclosures), which indicate when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'search_filings' for more granular queries. Clear context but lacks exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the tool is read-only and searches EDINET data, but does not disclose potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or edge cases (e.g., no results). Still, the behavior is adequately described for typical use.

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, front-loaded with the main action and scope. Every word adds value, with no wasted text.

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 lacks information about the output format or fields returned, which is important since no output schema is provided. It also omits prerequisites like network access or API keys. For a search tool with 5 parameters, this is a gap.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context like 'cross-search' across document types and clarifies the date range parameter (max 31 days) and the dual search modes (name or code), providing value beyond schema descriptions.

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 filing documents from EDINET, lists example document types, and specifies search by company name or security code. It distinguishes from the sibling tool by indicating cross-search and date range, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear use cases (investment research, credit analysis) and implies the tool is for flexible search across recent filings. However, it does not explicitly contrast with get_daily_filings or state when not to use this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.