Resolve a Japanese company name or alias to the primary listed company match, returning its securities code, official name, and match details for verification.
社名や別名から最上位1社を特定してコードと名前と照合情報を返します (消費クレジット: 1｡0件時は0)｡
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | 検索クエリ (社名または別名) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral context beyond the schema: a cost disclosure (1 credit, 0 when no hits) and the fact that only the single top-ranked match is returned. It omits auth requirements, error/ambiguity behavior, and what '照合情報' actually contains.
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 pairing the action with its return values, with the cost note compactly parenthesized. No filler, though the parenthetical slightly interrupts the primary statement.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the returned fields (code, name, match info) and the credit cost. Only the resolution semantics for ambiguous queries remain unaddressed.
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 there is only one parameter, whose schema text ('検索クエリ (社名または別名)') already matches the description's '社名や別名'. The description adds no syntax, aliasing, or normalization guidance, so the 3 baseline 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 (特定) and resource (社名や別名→最上位1社) plus the return payload (コード・名前・照合情報). The '最上位1社' scoping implicitly separates it from search_companies, but it never names a sibling, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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: call this when you have a name/alias and want a single resolved company. There is no explicit when-not, no mention of search_companies for multi-result lookups, and no stated alternative for exact-vs-fuzzy matching.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.