Suburb · Gross rental yield (%)
suburbs_market_yield_pctGross rental yield = median rent annualised / median sale price.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| suburb_name | Yes |
suburbs_market_yield_pctGross rental yield = median rent annualised / median sale price.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| suburb_name | 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": "Gross rental yield for the suburb, houses and units separately.\n\n⚠️ **Unit trap:** despite the `_pct` name, the figures here are\n**decimal fractions** — `0.0346` means 3.46%, so multiply by 100 to\ndisplay. The per-microburb version of the same metric\n(`/market/yield-map`) reports it the other way, as a percent (3.46).\nBoth are deliberate; just be sure which endpoint you are reading.\n\nGross throughout: annual rent over price, before rates, strata,\nmanagement, insurance or vacancy.",
- "example": {
- "area_level": "suburb",
- "area_name": "Belmont North",
- "as_of": "2026-05-24",
- "house": 0.0335,
- "unit": 0.0384
- },
- "properties": {
- "area_level": {
- "description": "Always 'suburb' for these endpoints.",
- "title": "Area Level",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "area_name": {
- "description": "Suburb (SAL) name.",
- "title": "Area Name",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "as_of": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Date of the most recent observation (YYYY-MM-DD).",
- "title": "As Of"
- },
- "house": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Gross rental yield for houses as a decimal fraction (0.0346 = 3.46%) — median weekly house rent × 52 ÷ median house price.",
- "title": "House"
- },
- "unit": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Gross rental yield for units as a decimal fraction (0.0384 = 3.84%), same calculation as `house`. Usually higher than the house yield, since units cost less relative to the rent they earn.",
- "title": "Unit"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "area_name",
- "area_level"
- ],
- "title": "YieldPct",
- "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[YieldPct]",
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-top-level-schema": "ApiResponse_YieldPct_"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the formula, which is useful conceptual context but does not describe behavior like return format, units, or any caveats. It does not contradict the annotations, so a mid-score is appropriate.
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, concise sentence that defines the metric with no filler. It is front-loaded with the essential calculation. However, it is arguably too terse for a complete tool description, so it loses a point for not also stating the action or usage.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and the annotations covering safety, the description is mostly adequate. It lacks any statement of what the return value looks like (e.g., a single percentage number) and does not mention any special cases or time periods. Still, for a simple metric, the gap is not severe, but it could be more 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the sole parameter 'suburb_name'. Although the parameter name is self-explanatory given the tool's domain, the description provides no additional meaning, format expectations, or examples. With only one parameter, the burden on the description to compensate is lower than for many-parameter tools, but it still fails to add value beyond the schema.
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 gives the precise definition of the metric (gross rental yield = median rent annualised / median sale price), which clarifies exactly what the tool computes. It is not a verb phrase like 'Get the yield for a suburb', but combined with the tool name and title, the purpose is unambiguous. It also distinguishes this from siblings like the series or map variants by defining the point-in-time percentage.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as suburbs_market_yield_pct_series or suburbs_market_yield_map. The description only states the formula, not the context in which an agent should pick this specific endpoint. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
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.