properties_context_street_bedroom_seriesThe subject's bedroom band (bed count from listing history) and the suburb's 10-year price series for that band.
Price: 15¢ 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": "The subject's bedroom-band benchmark: bed count inferred from\nlisting history, plus the suburb's 10-year price series for that\nbed-count + property-type band.",
- "example": {
- "band_label": "4-bed house",
- "bedrooms": 4,
- "gnaf_id": "GANSW704360755",
- "latest_date": "2026-06-28",
- "latest_value": 4400000,
- "property_type": "house",
- "series": [
- {
- "date": "2026-06-28",
- "value": 4400000
- }
- ],
- "suburb": "Castlecrag"
- },
- "properties": {
- "band_label": {
- "description": "Human label, e.g. \"4-bed house\".",
- "title": "Band Label",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "bedrooms": {
- "description": "Subject bed count — MAX(bedrooms) across every listing snapshot on record for the GNAF.",
- "title": "Bedrooms",
- "type": "integer"
- },
- "gnaf_id": {
- "description": "Subject property GNAF id.",
- "title": "Gnaf Id",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "latest_date": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Date of the most recent series point (YYYY-MM-DD).",
- "title": "Latest Date"
- },
- "latest_value": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Most recent series value (AUD).",
- "title": "Latest Value"
- },
- "property_type": {
- "description": "Subject property type bucket.",
- "enum": [
- "house",
- "unit"
- ],
- "title": "Property Type",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "series": {
- "description": "10-year monthly median price series for the band.",
- "items": {
- "description": "One point in the bedroom-band price series.",
- "properties": {
- "date": {
- "description": "ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD).",
- "title": "Date",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "value": {
- "description": "Median asking price (AUD) at that date.",
- "title": "Value",
- "type": "number"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "date",
- "value"
- ],
- "title": "BandSeriesPoint",
- "type": "object"
- },
- "title": "Series",
- "type": "array"
- },
- "suburb": {
- "description": "Suburb (SAL) the series is for.",
- "title": "Suburb",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "gnaf_id",
- "suburb",
- "bedrooms",
- "property_type",
- "band_label",
- "series"
- ],
- "title": "StreetBedroomSeries",
- "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[StreetBedroomSeries]",
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-top-level-schema": "ApiResponse_StreetBedroomSeries_"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the cost of 15¢ per call and clarifies the bedroom band comes from listing history. These are useful but do not go beyond the safety profile already handled by 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 extremely concise: one sentence describing the data content and a separate bolded cost line. Every word earns its place, and the cost is clearly separated. No redundancy or filler.
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 conveys the core return content (bedroom band and 10-year price series) and the per-call cost. However, it omits practical information such as how to obtain a valid gnaf_id and what exactly the price series contains (e.g., median, annual), so it is minimally adequate rather than complete.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the single parameter, gnaf_id, but it does not. It only refers to 'the subject', never explicitly mapping that to the gnaf_id input or describing its format. The name alone is insufficient for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.
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 specifies a distinct data resource: the subject property's bedroom band and the suburb's 10-year price series for that band. It clearly differentiates from siblings like properties_basics_bed_count or properties_sale_history, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'provides'.
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 given on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. There are no conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and description.
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.