Japanese public records on 1-10 companies per call: FSA, MOF, EDINET, ISA, gBizINFO. Evidence only.
Scored across 4 tools
The four tools mostly have distinct roles: catalog for discovery, entity_evidence_check for a single organization, entity_evidence_batch for 1-10 organizations, and get_receipt for retrieving paid results. However, entity_evidence_check and entity_evidence_batch are closely related and differ mainly by entity count, and the check description references registry-specific tools not present in this server, which may confuse selection.
Naming is mixed: catalog is a bare noun, entity_evidence_check and entity_evidence_batch use a shared domain prefix, and get_receipt follows a verb_noun pattern. The shared entity_evidence_ prefix helps grouping, but there is no single predictable convention across the set.
Four tools is well-scoped for this server's purpose: discovery, single-entity checks, batch checks, and receipt retrieval. Each tool has a clear operational role, and the count avoids unnecessary surface area.
The core lifecycle is covered: catalog discovery, single and batch evidence checks, and receipt re-fetch after payment. A minor gap is that entity_evidence_check points users to registry-specific tools such as jp-finance or jp-sanctions that are not included in this server, creating a potential dead end for single-registry checks.
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.
Same check as entity_evidence_check for 1-10 Japanese organizations in one call (by corporate number, exact name or registration number): per company the full evidence with each section's source, retrieval time, version date and what was not checked, plus a summary counting resolved, name-only, ambiguous, not found and unknown, and unavailable sources. Ambiguous names are never resolved by guess. Not charged if no company can be checked. Not a compliance determination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| detail | No | true: all records and receipts (default compact) | |
| companies | Yes | 1 to 10 companies, each with the same fields as entity_evidence_check (corporate_number, name, edinet_code, registration_numbers, prefecture, address_hint, domain); order kept |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the description discloses what each result carries (section-level source, retrieval time, version date, what was not checked), the five-way outcome summary (resolved, name-only, ambiguous, not found, unknown), and unavailable sources. It also states two non-obvious behavioral rules an agent could not infer: ambiguous names are never resolved by guess, and billing is waived when nothing can be checked.
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 scoping and identifier options are front-loaded, and the trailing clauses on ambiguity handling, billing and non-compliance each earn their place. It is a single heavy sentence-chain though, and the output/summary detail is packed in at the cost of easy scanning.
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?
For a paid, batch, read-only lookup with an output schema, the description covers inputs, per-result structure, summary categories, ambiguity policy and billing behavior. An agent has enough to decide between this and entity_evidence_check and to call it correctly in one pass.
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 the nested company fields, maxItems 10, minItems 1 and 'order kept' are already documented in structured data. The description adds only marginal meaning by restating the identifier types accepted and the allowed range, hitting the baseline rather than extending it.
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 opens with a precise verb and resource plus an explicit anchor to the sibling: the same check as entity_evidence_check, but batched over 1-10 Japanese organizations, with the accepted identifier types (corporate number, exact name, registration number) named. An agent can distinguish this batch tool from the single-record sibling without opening either 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?
The '1-10 ... in one call' framing makes the batch selection condition clear relative to entity_evidence_check, and 'Not charged if no company can be checked' plus 'Not a compliance determination' set real boundaries on use. It stops short of stating an explicit when-not-to-use or naming the single-company tool as the alternative for one record, so 4 rather than 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
For checks across several Japanese registries: FSA registers, warnings and enforcement cases, MOF asset-freeze list, EDINET filings, ISA support organizations, CAA actions, gBizINFO where connected. Gives 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, gBizINFO and CAA 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, while the description adds substantive behavior: each registry's status, version date, source, matches, and what was not checked are returned. It also warns that a domain alone stays unverified, that results are limited to stated scope and dates, and that no match is not proof none exists; these are meaningful limits beyond the 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 front-loads the multi-registry scope and then groups caveats into short clauses. It is dense but purposeful; most wording earns its place, though it could be slightly tighter.
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?
For a complex 10-parameter, multi-registry screening tool with an output schema, the description names covered registries, summarizes returned fields, states limitations, routes single-registry queries elsewhere, and includes a compliance disclaimer. With annotations and schema carrying the safety and parameter detail, this is complete enough for an agent 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%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the domain caveat by saying a domain alone stays unverified, but it does not add syntax, constraints, or meanings beyond what the schema already provides.
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 first sentence names the resource set (Japanese registries including FSA, MOF, EDINET, ISA, CAA, and gBizINFO) and the operation (checks across several registries). It also distinguishes multi-registry checks from single-registry tools, so an agent can identify this as a cross-registry public-record status check.
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 explicitly says to use this for checks across several registries and to use jp-finance, jp-sanctions, jp-edinet, or jp-ssw-support-orgs for one registry. It also states important scope limits such as no match not proving absence and no compliance determination, though it does not mention the sibling entity_evidence_batch or explain when bulk processing is appropriate.
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 30 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?
Beyond readOnlyHint=true, the description discloses pricing ('Free'), error behavior for unknown/unsettled ids (RECEIPT_NOT_FOUND), and a retention window (30 days after settlement). These are substantive operational facts an agent cannot get from the annotations or schema.
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 purpose, followed by cost, error case, and retention. No sentence is redundant and nothing is buried.
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, return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover safety. The description still covers cost, failure mode, and data lifetime, leaving no material gap for an agent calling this single-param read 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the 'rcpt_' + 64 hex format, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic constraint by implying the id must belong to a settled paid call, which goes slightly beyond the schema's format-only documentation.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Re-fetch the stored result of a settled paid call by its receipt_id.' This is unambiguous and an agent can immediately tell what the tool returns and what it operates on, even though the sibling tools are unrelated.
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?
It states the triggering condition clearly ('for when the response was lost after payment'), which is exactly the scenario that should select this tool. It also implicitly scopes usage to settled calls via the RECEIPT_NOT_FOUND note, though it names no alternative tools for other recovery 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.
entity_evidence_batch1 field changedInput schema / properties / companies / items / properties / prefecture / descriptionPrevious value: -"Prefecture to narrow the ISA and gBizINFO name searches, e.g. Tokyo"New value: +"Prefecture to narrow the ISA, gBizINFO and CAA name searches, e.g. Tokyo"entity_evidence_check1 field changedInput schema / properties / prefecture / descriptionPrevious value: -"Prefecture to narrow the ISA and gBizINFO name searches, e.g. Tokyo"New value: +"Prefecture to narrow the ISA, gBizINFO and CAA name searches, e.g. Tokyo"entity_evidence_batchcatalogentity_evidence_checkget_receiptJudge Japanese companies against your criteria using Japan's public data (gBizINFO, NTA, EDINET).
Remote MCP for Japan's EDINET DB — 3,800 listed companies' financials & filings (OAuth)
Search Japanese subsidies and public company data using J-Grants, gBizINFO, and EDINET.
Raw Japanese regulatory data for AI agents: pension, gazette, gBizINFO. x402-metered (USDC).
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
