jp-crypto-tax-rules

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It fully discloses the x402 payment mechanism: returns HTTP 402 challenge, requires settlement with X-PAYMENT header to get 200 response with pack body. Also includes legal disclaimers (not tax advice, Japanese text).

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?

Description is well-structured: primary purpose first, then payment details, then disclaimers. However, the Japanese disclaimer adds length without aiding English-speaking agents; a more concise version could omit it or place it last.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the response format (402 challenge, then 200 response with pack body). Covers payment flow, scenario enumeration, and legal caveats. Fully sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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% with one required enum parameter. The description repeats the enum values but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns a 'scenario-curated bundle of full structured rules' for specific use cases (defi_staking, overseas_exchange, corporate_holding, transition_2028). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_tax_rule which likely returns individual rules.

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?

Description specifies the exact scenarios this tool covers and implies it's for retrieving curated packs, not individual rules. It also mentions payment requirements, but doesn't explicitly exclude other use cases or advise when to prefer siblings.

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?

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the data as approximate reference values from public sources and not tax advice, but does not mention behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication, or potential costs.

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, with two English sentences and one Japanese sentence. It front-loads key information about what the tool returns and includes relevant caveats, with no redundant content.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately lists the categories of returned values and notes their sources and limitations. It covers the main points but could offer more detail on output structure.

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% for the single parameter tax_year, which is described in the schema. The tool description adds minimal context by referencing '2028-reform', but overall adds little beyond the schema.

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 title and description clearly state the tool returns Japanese tax parameters, listing specific items like income tax brackets, resident tax, and thresholds. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on a comprehensive set, but does not explicitly contrast with get_rule_pack or get_tax_rule.

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 includes 'FREE' and states 'not tax advice', setting expectations but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_tax_rule or list_tax_rules. Usage is implied from the content.

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?

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is 'FREE' (free to use?), returns verbatim from a versioned corpus, and includes a disclaimer that it is not tax advice. This adds important context beyond the schema. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., missing rule_id) or rate limits.

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 with a clear functional statement, followed by a legal disclaimer in two languages. It is efficient but the disclaimer adds length; still, it earns its place. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main functional aspects (what is returned) and adds a disclaimer. It is missing expected behavior for invalid rule_id, but is otherwise reasonably complete.

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 does not add any further detail about the rule_id parameter beyond the schema's example. The tool description itself is sufficient, but no extra value added.

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 title and description clearly state that this tool returns a single full structured rule by rule_id, listing specific fields (statement, exceptions, status, dates, tags, citations). It is distinct from siblings like list_tax_rules (listing) and get_rule_pack (pack). Verb 'returns' and resource 'full structured rule' are specific.

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 implies usage to retrieve details of a specific rule, but does not explicitly state when to use over alternatives (e.g., use list_tax_rules to find rule IDs, use get_tax_parameters for parameters). No 'when not to use' or exclusions are provided.

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?

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is free, returns structured data (rules-as-code), uses public sources only, and is not tax advice (including Japanese disclaimer). For a read-only listing tool, this is sufficient, though no mention of pagination or limits.

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 paragraph, front-loaded with key information ('FREE — returns structured rules'), followed by details. It is concise, though the Japanese disclaimer at the end could be optional for English agents.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers returned attributes, filters, source type, and legal disclaimer. It lacks explicit mention of pagination or result limits, but for a list tool of public rules, it feels adequately complete.

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 by explaining that tax_year resolves epoch applicability (current vs 2028 reform) and ties together the three filters. This adds meaning beyond individual parameter 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 it returns a catalog of Japanese crypto-asset tax rules with specific attributes (titles, status, dates, citations) and is filterable. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_tax_rule (single rule) or get_rule_pack (pack), making its purpose distinct.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. It implies usage for discovering or listing rules, but does not contrast with get_tax_rule or get_rule_pack. The mention of 'FREE' is a feature, not usage direction.

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