Japan Authority Updates (FSA, BOJ, MOF)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does add two useful facts: the returned field is feed_status and the feed is free (no cost/credential implication). It does not state whether the call is read-only, rate limited, or what the possible status values mean, but for a zero-parameter status probe the remaining risk is low.

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 zero filler; the resource and the returned field come first. The trailing 'Free.' and parenthetical are slightly telegraphic, but 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-annotation tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns and its cost, which is most of what an agent needs. It falls short on how to interpret feed_status values and whether the health check is global across FSA/BOJ/MOF or reported per source.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The parenthetical naming of feed_status is a minor bonus in signalling the response field even without an output 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?

States a concrete resource and outcome: feed health (feed_status) of Japan Authority Updates, and names the covered sources (FSA, BOJ, MOF). This is clearly a diagnostic status check rather than content retrieval, which implicitly separates it from siblings like jp_authorities_latest or jp_authorities_search, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a pre-flight/diagnostic check on the Japan authorities feed, but the description never says when to call it versus the other three jp_authorities_* tools, nor whether it should be run before or after them.

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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a notable behavioral trait the schema cannot: the tool is paid ($0.02 per call via x402/USDC), which affects whether an agent should invoke it. It does not disclose response shape, empty-result behavior, or pagination, leaving gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste: scope first, pricing second. Every element earns its place 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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope and cost but not what a result looks like or how an agent should handle an empty 24-hour window. Adequate but not 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs, and the description correctly signals that no parameters are needed.

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 (updates), resource (Japanese authority publications from FSA, BOJ, MOF), and scope (last 24 hours). The three named authorities and the 24-hour window distinguish it from siblings like jp_authorities_since and jp_authorities_search.

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 'last 24 hours' scope implies when to use it (freshness checks), and siblings like jp_authorities_since suggest time-ranged alternatives. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer jp_authorities_since over this tool or what to do when no updates exist.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses the commercial model ($0.05 per call via x402/USDC), which an agent must know before invoking. However, it omits that the operation is read-only, result volume/pagination behavior, and error or empty-result handling.

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 gives purpose, scope, and the pricing caveat with zero redundant wording. Nothing needs trimming and the most decision-relevant facts come first.

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 simple three-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and cost adequately. Minor gaps remain around result shape/pagination and explicit sibling routing, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so from/to/authority semantics (formats, 92-day cap, enum values) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes the concepts of date range and authority without adding constraints or format detail, 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 (search) and resource (Japanese authority updates from FSA/BOJ/MOF) scoped to publication date range and authority. It implicitly distinguishes itself from jp_authorities_latest and jp_authorities_since by requiring a date range, but never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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 date-range-plus-authority framing implies when the tool applies (historical/range queries), but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance, and no mention of when to prefer jp_authorities_latest or jp_authorities_since. Usage must be inferred from the parameter set.

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 are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the cost model ($0.01 per call, x402/USDC), but says nothing about result volume, pagination, failure behavior, or whether repeated calls with the same t are idempotent — all relevant for a paid polling endpoint.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the resource and temporal scope lead, and the pricing note trails compactly. Slightly more could be gained by folding the pricing into a parenthetical, but 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?

For a single-parameter tool with full schema coverage the description covers the essentials of when it returns data. Since there is no output schema, the absence of any hint about the shape of returned update records (fields, identifiers, ordering guarantees beyond the schema's note) leaves a real gap.

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 baseline is 3; the 't' parameter's format, future-date restriction, exclusive comparison and ordering are already fully documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'first observed after timestamp t' adds only a minor nuance over the schema's observed_at > t.

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?

Names a specific resource (Japanese authority updates from FSA, BOJ, MOF) and a specific scope (first observed after timestamp t), which is more precise than a tautology. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like jp_authorities_latest or jp_authorities_search; the 'since' semantics are implied rather than contrasted with alternatives.

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 incremental/delta polling ('first observed after timestamp t'), which gives an agent a workable sense of when to use it. However, it never states when NOT to use it or names jp_authorities_latest / jp_authorities_search as the alternative for a snapshot or keyword-based lookup.

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