近日開札予定の競売物件を一覧取得. List auctions whose opening_date falls within the next N days (default 14, max 90). Sorted ascending. Useful for investment screening / calendar exports.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Default 50 | |
| days_ahead | No | Lookahead window, default 14 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the sorting behavior (ascending) and default/max values, which is minor beyond annotations.
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 concise (two English sentences plus a Japanese phrase). It front-loads the purpose and includes parameters and use case. The Japanese phrase may be redundant for English contexts but does not harm conciseness.
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?
With no output schema, the description should hint at return structure. It says 'list auctions' but does not specify fields. It covers the input and purpose adequately but lacks details on what is returned.
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 descriptions for both parameters (limit, days_ahead) including defaults and bounds. The description only echoes the days_ahead default and max, adding no new parameter meaning. Baseline 3.
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 'list' and the resource 'auctions', and specifies the time window (next N days, default 14, max 90) and sorting. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_auctions (likely more filtering) and get_auction_detail (single item).
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 mentions 'Useful for investment screening / calendar exports', providing context for when to use. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the sibling tools imply alternatives. 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool covers a distinct aspect: searching auctions, listing upcoming sales, fetching a single auction's details, looking up court info, and finding practitioners. No two tools overlap in purpose, making selection unambiguous.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., search_auctions, get_auction_detail). The verbs (find, get, list, search) clearly indicate the action, and the nouns are specific to the domain.
Five tools is well-scoped for a read-only data hub covering Japan real-estate auctions. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy, and the count is neither too sparse nor overwhelming.
The tool surface covers core operations: search, list, detail, court directory, and practitioner lookup. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no historical auction data or bid results), but the set provides a solid foundation for common investment and legal workflows.