properties_valuation_negative_gearingNegative-gearing stat at the finest available level: per-property cashflow scenarios (80% + 105% LVR), falling back to mesh-block then suburb investor-exposure.
Price: 20¢ 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": "Negative-gearing stat at the finest level available.\n\n``level='property'`` carries the per-property cashflow fields;\n``level='mb'`` / ``level='suburb'`` carry the area-exposure fields.\nFields for the other level are null.",
- "example": {
- "gross_yield_pct": 0.57,
- "is_negatively_geared": true,
- "level": "property",
- "lvr_default": 0.8,
- "net_cashflow_105lvr": -255336,
- "net_cashflow_80lvr": -189996,
- "net_cashflow_80lvr_wk": -3654,
- "rent_estimate_suspect": true
- },
- "properties": {
- "exposure": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Share of dwellings held by negatively-geared landlords, 0-1 (mb/suburb level).",
- "title": "Exposure"
- },
- "gross_yield_pct": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Gross rental yield, already a percent (property level).",
- "title": "Gross Yield Pct"
- },
- "is_negatively_geared": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "boolean"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Rent minus interest at 80% LVR is negative (property level).",
- "title": "Is Negatively Geared"
- },
- "level": {
- "description": "Resolution the stat was found at: per-property, mesh-block, or suburb.",
- "enum": [
- "property",
- "mb",
- "suburb"
- ],
- "title": "Level",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "lvr_default": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Headline-scenario LVR, 0-1 (property level).",
- "title": "Lvr Default"
- },
- "n_investor_candidates": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "integer"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Number of investor candidates scored (mb/suburb level).",
- "title": "N Investor Candidates"
- },
- "net_cashflow_105lvr": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Net cashflow AUD/yr at the 105% equity-release scenario (property level).",
- "title": "Net Cashflow 105Lvr"
- },
- "net_cashflow_80lvr": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Net cashflow AUD/yr at the headline 80% LVR (property level).",
- "title": "Net Cashflow 80Lvr"
- },
- "net_cashflow_80lvr_wk": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Net cashflow AUD/wk at 80% LVR (property level).",
- "title": "Net Cashflow 80Lvr Wk"
- },
- "private_rental_share": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Private-rental share of dwellings, 0-1 (suburb level only).",
- "title": "Private Rental Share"
- },
- "realistic_lvr": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Mean LVR among candidates, 0-1 (mb level only).",
- "title": "Realistic Lvr"
- },
- "rent_estimate_suspect": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "boolean"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Upstream rent under-predicts — yield/cashflow indicative only (property level).",
- "title": "Rent Estimate Suspect"
- },
- "sal": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Suburb (SAL) name (mb/suburb level).",
- "title": "Sal"
- },
- "share_tax_loss_making": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Share of investor candidates that are tax-loss-making, 0-1 (mb/suburb level).",
- "title": "Share Tax Loss Making"
- },
- "tier": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Exposure tier (e.g. 'Very high', 'High', 'Medium', 'Low') (mb/suburb level).",
- "title": "Tier"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "level"
- ],
- "title": "NegativeGearing",
- "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[NegativeGearing]",
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-top-level-schema": "ApiResponse_NegativeGearing_"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: the fallback hierarchy from per-property to mesh-block to suburb investor-exposure, the specific LVR scenarios, and the per-call price. Since annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, the description enriches rather than repeats them.
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 two tight sentences: the first front-loads the core purpose and granularity, the second adds the crucial fallback behavior and price. No filler or redundant wording is present.
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 one-parameter read-only tool without an output schema, the description provides the main operational context: property-level cashflow scenarios, fallback behavior, and cost. It does not enumerate exact output fields, but the stated data semantics are enough for an agent to invoke the tool appropriately.
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 has no descriptions, and the description only indirectly explains the single gnaf_id parameter as identifying a property via 'per-property'. This is a minimal but real semantic contribution. It does not specify the identifier format or how to obtain a valid GNAF ID, which would have compensated more fully for the 0% schema coverage.
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 tool as a negative-gearing stat, scoped to a single property with per-property cashflow scenarios at 80% and 105% LVR. It distinguishes itself from the many valuation and property siblings by its specific subject matter and granularity fallback. Although it lacks an imperative verb, the title and description combine to make the purpose 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?
The description implies use when the caller needs negative-gearing data at the finest available granularity, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like properties_valuation_all or other valuation tools. It provides useful granularity context but no exclusions or alternative routing.
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.