get_iprate_coverageExplain which static release cohorts support a jurisdiction and IP-right question. Returns held, partial, or not-covered state, release assets, counts, fields, and incidents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tier | No | Optional released national or European route. | |
| right_type | No | Optional IP right type. | |
| jurisdiction | No | Optional ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code, or EU for the European route. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return spectrum (held, partial, not-covered) and lists returned elements (release assets, counts, fields, incidents), which is useful but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like authentication requirements or error conditions. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is a solid 3.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then lists the return contents concisely. It is information-dense without rambling, though it could be split for easier scanning. This is efficient and earns a 4.
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 has 0 required parameters and no output schema, but the description clearly explains what it returns (state, assets, counts, fields, incidents) and the domain (static release cohorts, jurisdiction, IP-right). It does not specify behavior when no parameters are supplied, but for a read-only, idempotent tool with simple optional inputs, this is near complete. A 4 reflects the minor 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (tier, right_type, jurisdiction) with enums and ISO code guidance. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so it stays at the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
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 states a clear verb ('Explain') and specific resource ('static release cohorts') plus the scope ('jurisdiction and IP-right question'). It distinguishes from siblings (find_ip_representatives, get_ip_market_snapshot, get_ip_representative_profile) by its focus on coverage, but does not explicitly name them. This is clear but lacks explicit differentiation, so a 4 is appropriate.
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 a clear usage context: it is for when an agent needs to understand coverage for a jurisdiction and IP-right question. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough to guide selection. This fits the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.
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.
Each tool addresses a distinct query type: coverage discovery, representative search, single profile retrieval, and market snapshot. No two tools appear to overlap in purpose, and their required inputs make selection unambiguous.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, using 'get_' for retrieval and 'find_' for search. The noun components clearly identify the target resource: ip_representatives, ip_market_snapshot, iprate_coverage, and ip_representative_profile.
Four tools is a tight, well-scoped set for a read-only IP analytics server. Each tool earns its place and there are no redundant or filler tools.
For a static-release analytics server, the surface covers the full read-only workflow: determine coverage, search representatives, fetch a detailed profile, and obtain a market snapshot. Missing CRUD operations are not gaps because the server is explicitly bounded to published static cohorts.