properties_comparables_cma_single_compSingle best comparable from the CMA set (highest dist_score).
Price: 10¢ per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gnaf_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "available": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "boolean"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "`false` on no-data responses. Omitted on success — branch on `data !== null` if you want a single discriminator.",
- "title": "Available"
- },
- "data": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "description": "One comparable sale row.",
- "example": {
- "bathrooms": 2,
- "bedrooms": 4,
- "date_sold": "2024-07-13",
- "dist_score": 6.319769313849382,
- "garage_spaces": 2,
- "gnaf_pid": "GAACT714923950",
- "latitude": -35.38013684,
- "longitude": 149.06828089,
- "price": 815000,
- "property_type": "house",
- "sal": "Kambah",
- "state": "ACT",
- "street": "8 SHIPARD PL"
- },
- "properties": {},
- "title": "CmaComp",
- "type": "object"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "The endpoint's payload, or `null` when Microburbs has no value."
- },
- "message": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Human-readable explanation. Omitted on success.",
- "title": "Message"
- },
- "reason": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Machine-readable slug naming the no-data condition (e.g. `no_avm_for_GANSW704074813`). Stable per endpoint. Omitted on success.",
- "title": "Reason"
- }
- },
- "title": "ApiResponse[CmaComp]",
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-top-level-schema": "ApiResponse_CmaComp_"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the selection criterion 'highest dist_score' and the pricing detail, which go beyond the annotations that already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. However, it does not disclose what happens if no comparable exists, error behavior, or the exact structure of the returned comparable. The annotations cover safety, but the behavioral context is sparse.
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 highly concise—one sentence and a pricing note. It gets to the point without wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is so brief that it omits essential parameter and usage details, which slightly detracts from its effectiveness.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description should explain what 'comparable' means, what dist_score is, and what the return value looks like. It only says 'single best comparable' without elaboration. The annotations cover read-only and idempotency, but the description leaves significant gaps for an agent to call it correctly.
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 description does not explain the gnaf_id parameter at all. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to compensate by describing what gnaf_id represents or how it is used. The agent is left to infer that it identifies the property, but this is not stated.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the single best comparable from the CMA set, selected by highest dist_score. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like properties_comparables_all (all comparables) and properties_comparables_cma_comp_set (the set). The purpose is unambiguous.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the alternative comparable tools. The name implies it is for the single best comparable, but the description does not explicitly say 'use this when you need only the best' or contrast with the all/set variants. No exclusion criteria or context is given.
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.