Lilambd Data for Agents

jp-law-reviews

Which Japanese laws are due for their statutory review, and when?. 2,816 review clauses (見直し規定) in 888 Japanese laws, each with its base event and date, the number of years, and the computed due date, with an e-Gov link to the law. Ask what is due in a window, a month-by-month summary with the reviews already overdue, or every review clause of one law. Facts from statute text only; no personal data. Routes: /due (from, to, limit); /law (q, law_id); /answer (months). Paid $0.05 USDC per call via x402 (_meta["x402/payment"]); set sample=true for a free 3-row preview.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "route": "<route>"
    },
    "name": "jp-law-reviews"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`route`	Yes	One of: /due, /law, /answer. Replace {placeholders} with a value, e.g. /search or /HND.
`params`	No	Query parameters, e.g. {"q":"tokyo","limit":"50"}
`sample`	No	Free preview, max 3 rows

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses paid access ($0.05 USDC per call via x402/_meta payment), the free 3-row sample escape hatch, data provenance (statute text only, no personal data), and corpus size. It omits pagination/error behavior and result ordering, which keeps it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the user-facing question, then corpus facts, then route map, then pricing. Dense but every sentence carries distinct information; no filler or restated name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing per-record fields (base event, date, years, computed due date, e-Gov link) and the summary shape including overdue items. Gaps remain around response envelope, pagination defaults, and limit bounds, but an agent has enough to call correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by mapping each route to its query keys (/due: from, to, limit; /law: q, law_id; /answer: months) and clarifying that sample=true means a free 3-row preview. This is information the schema's generic params object does not convey.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource and scope: statutory review clauses (見直し規定) across 888 Japanese laws with base event, years, and computed due date. An agent can tell exactly what data it returns and that it is distinct from generic siblings like rules-ahead or japan.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Names three concrete usage patterns (what's due in a window, month-by-month summary with overdue, all clauses of one law) and maps each to a route. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or sibling comparisons, but the query intents are clear enough to select a route.

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

All Lilambd Data for Agents tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?