同じ仕事の時給を、日本・米国・英国・ドイツで比べる（56 の仕事）。円に直さず、その国の仕事全体の平均の時給の何倍か（ratio）で返す。query は日本語の仕事の名前か、英語の職業名（例：薬剤師・保育士・software・nurse）。field で分野だけに絞れる。どちらも省くと仕事の一覧。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| field | No | 分野（医療／介護・保育・教育／技術・専門／事務・販売／サービス／運転・運輸／建設・ものづくり）。一部だけでもよい | |
| query | No | 仕事の名前（日本語）か職業名（英語）の一部 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the non-obvious behavior that results are returned as a ratio to the country-wide average wage with no yen conversion, plus the default listing behavior when parameters are omitted. It does not discuss permissions, limits, or the shape of the returned values beyond the ratio concept.
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?
Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core comparison and the ratio semantics, then parameters, then the no-parameter case. No filler or redundancy.
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?
No output schema exists, so explaining the ratio return value is essential and is done clearly; parameter behavior and the default listing are also covered. Only the concrete shape of the response stays implicit, which is a minor gap for a two-parameter 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains both parameters; the description nevertheless adds examples (薬剤師・保育士・software・nurse) and clarifies that query matches a partial name, and explains the both-omitted case, which is genuinely 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 opening sentence names a specific verb (compare), resource (hourly wages), scope (Japan/US/UK/Germany, 56 jobs), and distinguishes it from the sibling wages_ranking by stating that results are relative ratios rather than currency conversions.
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 accepted forms for query (Japanese job names or English occupation names, with examples), that field narrows by category, and that omitting both returns the full job list. It does not explicitly say when to prefer a sibling such as wages_ranking over this tool, so it falls short of a 5.
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.