get_flip_scoreGovAuctions Flip Score resale signal for one live lot, from any source, in any market with sold-price comps (valued against that market's comp archive): estimated value, effective bid, discount, and the link to the lot on its source site. Pass the lot id as it appears in a govauctions.app lot URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those: the tool returns a calculated resale signal with specific fields, and it is conditioned on the market having sold-price comps. No contradictions with annotations.
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?
The description is a single dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the tool's purpose and output components, then closes with the necessary input instruction. It is slightly long but every clause contributes meaning.
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?
Despite having no output schema, the description names all returned components (estimated value, effective bid, discount, source link), explains the single input's format, and states the comp-market prerequisite. This is sufficient for a low-complexity, one-parameter, safely annotated read operation.
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 input schema provides only a bare 'id' string with no description. The description compensates by explaining that the id is the lot id as it appears in a govauctions.app lot URL, which is exactly the format guidance an agent needs. With 0% schema coverage, this carries the full weight and does so adequately.
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 description clearly identifies the resource ('one live lot') and what it produces ('resale signal' with estimated value, effective bid, discount, and link). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on the Flip Score computation rather than listing details, comp history, or trends, though it doesn't name specific siblings.
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 gives clear selection context: use it for a single live lot across any source/market where sold-price comps exist. It also specifies the required input format ('lot id as it appears in a govauctions.app lot URL'). It stops short of explicitly contrasting with sibling tools, but the scope is well defined.
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.