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 (10p).

Input 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

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: states the 10-credit (10p) cost, that a total is deliberately omitted because counting archived listings costs seconds, that only located properties inside the boundary match, that yield filters silently exclude unknown rent/price, and that non-matched rows carry null comparisons. These are exactly the behaviors an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns before constraints and caveats; nearly every sentence carries a non-obvious rule. It is dense and a single long block rather than broken into sections, which costs a little scannability for a 14-parameter tool.

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

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Output schema exists, so return shape needn't be restated, and the description instead covers the things structure cannot: geographic limits, UK-only scope, cost, pagination policy, and the enrichment-matching caveat. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With schema coverage at 0%, the description carries the load and does well: it defines the polygon constraints (64 corners, 150 km², 20 districts), the postcode_districts=[] resolution trick, allowed tenure values, yield computation basis, and auction guide price pricing. It leaves limit, channel, min/max beds and min/max price unexplained, though those are largely self-describing.

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 specific verb and resource - 'What is on the market RIGHT NOW in these postcode districts' - and enumerates the enrichment payload (asking_vs_avm_pct, discount_to_avm_gbp, £/m², yields, lease years, EPC, signals). The 'RIGHT NOW' framing plus the explicit contrast with archived listings makes clear it is not listing_history or sourcing_search.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear operative context: filters (tenure, EPC, min yield) apply before pagination, polygon scoping via area_geojson with postcode_districts=[] to resolve districts, and explicit instruction to page with offset rather than counting. It does not name a sibling alternative for the archived/off-market case, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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?