Japanese public records on an organization: FSA, MOF, EDINET, ISA and gBizINFO lists. Evidence only.
Scored across 3 tools
The three tools have largely distinct roles: catalog is discovery/metadata, entity_evidence_check performs the actual cross-registry lookup, and get_receipt retrieves settled paid results. catalog and get_receipt are both auxiliary 'meta' tools, but their purposes do not overlap enough to cause misselection.
Names mix conventions: 'catalog' is a bare noun, 'get_receipt' is verb_noun, and 'entity_evidence_check' is a noun-noun-verb compound. Each is readable individually, but there is no single predictable pattern across the set.
Only 3 tools for a server that advertises multi-registry evidence coverage, with just one substantive operation. It is borderline thin, since catalog and get_receipt are plumbing rather than domain capabilities.
For its stated purpose the surface is mostly coherent: discovery via catalog, the cross-registry check itself, and a recovery path via get_receipt. Single-registry operations are delegated to other servers, so coverage is acceptable, though there is no direct way to enumerate registry-by-registry results beyond the aggregate call.
List the tools of this server with prices, data sources, licensing, daily limits and data freshness.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| legal | Yes | |
| terms | Yes | URL of the terms of service. |
| tools | Yes | Every tool of this server with its price. |
| paused | Yes | Operator pause flags (true = paused). |
| server | Yes | |
| payment | Yes | |
| provenance | No | Freshness receipts for every upstream source used. |
| daily_limits | Yes | Daily limits of paid calls (calls, usd, timezone) or a misconfiguration notice. |
| fetch_status_values | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the content categories returned (prices, licensing, limits, freshness), which is useful context, but an output schema exists and would surface the same structure, so the incremental disclosure is modest.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause enumerates distinct payload content, so nothing is wasted.
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 parameters, a read-only annotation, and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values or safety. It is nearly complete for this simple tool; only a hint about when to reach for it is absent.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies under the '0 params' rule.
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?
Clear verb ("List") plus resource ("the tools of this server") and an enumeration of the payload contents (prices, data sources, licensing, daily limits, freshness). It is plainly distinguishable from siblings like get_receipt or drone_flight_check, though it does not explicitly name or contrast them.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; usage is only implied by the discovery framing ("the tools of this server"). An agent can infer this is the entry point for learning available tools and pricing, but nothing states that intent directly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
For checks spanning several Japanese registries at once: FSA registers, warnings and enforcement case list, MOF asset-freeze list, EDINET filings, ISA support organizations, gBizINFO where connected. Returns each registry's status, version date, source, matches and what was not checked; a domain alone stays unverified. For one registry, use jp-finance, jp-sanctions, jp-edinet or jp-ssw-support-orgs. Stated scope and dates only; no match is not proof none exists. No compliance determination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Organization name, e.g. 株式会社SBI証券. A person-like name is screened only against the MOF list | |
| detail | No | true: all records and receipts (default compact) | |
| domain | No | Optional website domain, e.g. example.com. Never resolved to an organization (identity.domain is unverified) | |
| prefecture | No | Prefecture to narrow the ISA and gBizINFO name searches, e.g. Tokyo | |
| edinet_code | No | EDINET filer code, e.g. E03816 | |
| address_hint | No | Part of the address, e.g. 千代田区, to tie a name to one gBizINFO corporate number | |
| corporate_number | No | 13-digit corporate number, e.g. 3010401049814 (NTA registry not yet connected) | |
| registration_numbers | No | Registration numbers by registry | |
| fsa_registration_number | No | GET form of registration_numbers.fsa | |
| ssw_registration_number | No | GET form of registration_numbers.ssw |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| terms | Yes | URL of the terms of service. |
| detail | Yes | false = compact answer (default); true = every matched record and full receipts. |
| receipt | Yes | |
| summary | Yes | |
| identity | Yes | |
| sections | Yes | One section per registry, in the common registry-status shape. |
| provenance | Yes | Freshness receipts for every upstream source used. |
| answered_at | Yes | |
| not_covered | No | What this service does not cover (detail=true; also in /llms.txt). |
| legal_notice | Yes | |
| privacy_note | Yes | |
| official_check | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by disclosing result semantics and limits: per-registry status/version date/source, 'what was not checked', that a domain alone stays unverified, that no match is not proof of non-existence, and that no compliance determination is made. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, so it is strong 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?
Front-loaded with the multi-registry scope, then alternatives, then caveats; every clause carries information and there is no filler. It is a dense single block rather than structured bullets, which slightly hurts scanability for a 10-parameter tool.
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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, yet it still clarifies scope, coverage limits, negative-result meaning and the no-compliance-determination stance. Combined with annotations covering read-only/open-world behavior and 100% schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it 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% and each of the 10 parameters already carries its own description with examples (name, domain, prefecture, edinet_code, address_hint, corporate_number, registration_numbers). The description adds almost no parameter-level detail beyond the schema's own 'never resolved to an organization' / 'unverified' notes, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: a public-record check that spans several named Japanese registries (FSA, MOF, EDINET, ISA, gBizINFO) at once. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the single-registry tools (jp-finance, jp-sanctions, jp-edinet, jp-ssw-support-orgs), so an agent can route without opening a schema.
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?
Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('checks spanning several Japanese registries at once') and an explicit when-not with named alternatives ('For one registry, use jp-finance, jp-sanctions, jp-edinet or jp-ssw-support-orgs'). Nothing about routing is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Re-fetch the stored result of a settled paid call by its receipt_id, for when the response was lost after payment. Free. Unknown or unsettled receipt ids return RECEIPT_NOT_FOUND. Results are kept for 90 days after settlement.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| receipt_id | Yes | The receipt_id returned with a paid result ("rcpt_" + 64 hex characters). |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| tool | Yes | Name of the paid tool that produced the result. |
| terms | Yes | URL of the terms of service. |
| result | Yes | The stored result, exactly as returned by the paid call. |
| payment | Yes | |
| provenance | Yes | Freshness receipts for every upstream source used. |
| receipt_id | Yes | Receipt id of the settled paid call ("rcpt_" + 64 hex). Use with get_receipt. |
| settled_at | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes well past readOnlyHint=true by disclosing cost ('Free'), the failure mode and error code (RECEIPT_NOT_FOUND for unknown/unsettled ids), and the retention window (90 days after settlement). These are exactly the runtime traits an agent needs before calling.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the receipt_id, followed by behavioral facts. No filler, no restatement of the title.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description still covers cost, error behavior, and retention limits. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.
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% and the schema already specifies the receipt_id format ('rcpt_' + 64 hex characters, maxLength 80). The description only names the identifier without adding format or constraint detail, so the schema does the real work.
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?
States a specific verb ('re-fetch'), specific resource ('stored result of a settled paid call'), and the keying mechanism ('by its receipt_id'). The 're-fetch ... for when the response was lost' framing clearly separates it from the unrelated sibling tools.
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?
Gives an explicit triggering scenario: use it when a paid call's response was lost after payment. It also implies the boundary condition (unknown or unsettled ids are not valid targets), but does not name an alternative tool or state a when-not clause for other lookup paths.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
catalogentity_evidence_checkget_receiptgBizINFO — Japanese corporate registry, from METI (経済産業省).
Which Japanese corporate numbers match this company name? gBizINFO (METI) relay with sources.
Judge Japanese companies against your criteria using Japan's public data (gBizINFO, NTA, EDINET).
Raw Japanese regulatory data for AI agents: pension, gazette, gBizINFO. x402-metered (USDC).
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.