MarketCode

Live listings enriched against our valuation

sourcing_live_listings

Read-onlyIdempotent

What is on the market RIGHT NOW in these postcode districts, each listing
enriched against our own record of the property: asking price against our
valuation (`asking_vs_avm_pct`, `discount_to_avm_gbp`), £/m², gross yield
on both the asking and valuation bases, unexpired lease years, EPC with
its retrofit gap, the designation flags, days listed, the agent, and a
plain-language `signals` list.

A drawn UK polygon can scope the search; pass postcode_districts=[] to
resolve its districts. At most 64 corners, 150 km² and 20 districts.
Only listings with located properties inside the boundary match.

Tenure accepts freehold or leasehold. Tenure, EPC ratings and minimum
gross yield filter before pagination.
Yield uses recorded asking monthly rent annualised against the asking or
auction guide price. Unknown rent/price cannot satisfy a yield filter.

There is NO total — a district holds far more archived listings than live
ones, so counting them costs seconds while the page costs milliseconds.
Read `has_more` and page with `offset`; never tell a user how many
listings exist, only how many you fetched.

A listing enriches only where the portal's own UPRN match landed on a unit
we hold; `enrichment.n_with_valuation` says how many of the rows that was,
and the rest carry the listing's fields with null comparisons.
UK only. Costs 10 credits.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`limit`	No
`epc_in`	No
`offset`	No
`tenure`	No
`channel`	No	residential_sale
`max_beds`	No
`min_beds`	No
`max_price`	No
`min_price`	No
`new_homes`	No
`area_geojson`	No
`auction_only`	No
`postcode_districts`	Yes
`min_gross_yield_pct`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description layers substantial additional behaviour: credit cost, UK-only scope, filter-before-pagination semantics, yield computation basis, null comparisons when UPRN match fails, and the explicit 'NO total' + has_more paging contract. This is well beyond what the structured fields convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The output-field list opens the description, which is arguably not the front-most concern for a caller, but the body is dense and each constraint sentence earns its place. No filler or repetition; length is justified by the 14-parameter surface.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

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 not be detailed, and the description still explains the enrichment/null behaviour. Pagination, geographic limits, filtering order, and cost are all covered; only a few filter parameters (channel, new_homes) are left without semantics.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema coverage across 14 parameters, the description carries the full burden. It adds real meaning for area_geojson (64 corners, 150 km², 20 districts), tenure, EPC, and min_gross_yield_pct computation, but leaves channel, new_homes, min/max price units, and min/max beds undefined in both schema and text.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a precise verb and resource: 'What is on the market RIGHT NOW in these postcode districts, each listing enriched against our own record of the property.' It further distinguishes itself from archived siblings ('a district holds far more archived listings than live ones') and frames the enrichment output, so an agent can separate it from sourcing_search or listing_history.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives operational usage context (polygon scoping, pagination with has_more/offset, never quoting totals, filter-before-pagination) and constraints (UK only, 10 credits). However, it never names an alternative tool or states when NOT to use this one versus siblings like sourcing_search or auction_lots, leaving the routing decision implied.

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

All MarketCode tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?