get_tax_ruleFREE — returns one full structured rule: statement, exceptions, status, effective dates, machine tags and statutory citations (sources), served verbatim from the versioned rules corpus. Not tax advice. 一般的な税制情報の提供であり、個別の税務判断は税理士にご相談ください。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rule_id | Yes | Rule id, e.g. jp.crypto.income.classification.individual |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the source ('served verbatim from the versioned rules corpus') and includes a non-tax-advice disclaimer, but does not specify error behavior (e.g., missing rule_id), read-only nature, or any side effects. It is adequately transparent for a simple lookup but not exhaustive.
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: one English sentence covering purpose and source, plus a necessary legal disclaimer in Japanese. No unnecessary words, and the core information is front-loaded. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.
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 (single required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description provides sufficient context: what is returned, the source, and a disclaimer. It does not cover error cases or return format details, but these are not critical for a straightforward lookup tool.
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%: the parameter 'rule_id' already has a clear description and example. The description adds context by framing the lookup as 'rule_id lookup' and giving an example in the schema, but does not substantially enhance meaning 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 description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'returns one full structured rule' and lists specific components (statement, exceptions, status, etc.). It also identifies the lookup method (rule_id). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tax_rules (list) or get_rule_pack (likely returns a set of 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?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It includes a 'FREE' label and a legal disclaimer, but does not explain prerequisites, when not to use, or how this complements siblings like get_rule_pack or get_tax_parameters.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: list_tax_rules catalogs rules, get_tax_rule retrieves a single rule, get_tax_parameters provides tax parameters, and get_rule_pack delivers scenario-based bundles. No functional overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: list_tax_rules, get_tax_rule, get_tax_parameters, get_rule_pack. The naming convention is uniform and predictable.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its domain (Japanese crypto tax rules). Each tool serves a necessary function, and the count is neither too sparse nor excessive.
The tool surface covers cataloging, single-rule retrieval, parameters, and scenario packs. Minor gap: no batch retrieval for full rules by category, but list with filtering partially addresses this.