Suburb · Gross rental yield — full series
suburbs_market_yield_pct_seriesFull gross-rental-yield history by property type, decimal fractions.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| suburb_name | Yes |
suburbs_market_yield_pct_seriesFull gross-rental-yield history by property type, decimal fractions.
| 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": "Full gross-rental-yield history by property type.",
- "example": {
- "area_level": "suburb",
- "area_name": "Belmont North",
- "as_of": "2026-08-09",
- "house": [
- {
- "date": "2015-01-31",
- "value": 0.0432
- },
- {
- "date": "2026-08-09",
- "value": 0.0347
- }
- ],
- "unit": [
- {
- "date": "2015-01-31",
- "value": 0.0501
- },
- {
- "date": "2026-03-08",
- "value": 0.0389
- }
- ]
- },
- "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": [
- {
- "items": {
- "description": "One observation in a suburb time series.",
- "properties": {
- "date": {
- "description": "ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD) of the observation.",
- "title": "Date",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "value": {
- "description": "Series value at that date.",
- "title": "Value",
- "type": "number"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "date",
- "value"
- ],
- "title": "SeriesPoint",
- "type": "object"
- },
- "type": "array"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "House gross-yield series — DECIMAL fractions (0.0347 = 3.47%).",
- "title": "House"
- },
- "unit": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "items": {
- "description": "One observation in a suburb time series.",
- "properties": {
- "date": {
- "description": "ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD) of the observation.",
- "title": "Date",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "value": {
- "description": "Series value at that date.",
- "title": "Value",
- "type": "number"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "date",
- "value"
- ],
- "title": "SeriesPoint",
- "type": "object"
- },
- "type": "array"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Unit gross-yield series — DECIMAL fractions.",
- "title": "Unit"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "area_name",
- "area_level"
- ],
- "title": "YieldSeries",
- "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[YieldSeries]",
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-top-level-schema": "ApiResponse_YieldSeries_"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is clear. The description adds behavioral context: it returns a full series (not a single value), is segmented by property type, and values are decimal fractions. This is useful beyond annotations, though it doesn't describe output shape, ordering, or exact property types.
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, compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key concept ('Full gross-rental-yield history') and includes all essential qualifiers. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives the core idea but leaves gaps. It doesn't specify what property types are included, how the series is structured (e.g., time intervals), or how to interpret the decimal fractions (e.g., 0.05 = 5%). Given the annotations cover safety, this is a minimum viable description but not fully 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?
The schema has one required parameter 'suburb_name' with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain this parameter at all—no format, examples, or constraints. The name implies it's a suburb name, but the description adds no value beyond what the parameter name suggests. Since coverage is low, the description fails to compensate.
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 it provides 'Full gross-rental-yield history by property type, decimal fractions.' This clearly identifies the resource (gross rental yield), the scope (full history), and the format (decimal fractions). It differentiates from siblings like suburbs_market_yield_pct (likely current yield) by emphasizing 'full series'. However, it doesn't explicitly name any sibling, so it's clear but not maximally distinguishing.
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 usage for historical yield analysis by saying 'full history', which contrasts with current or map views. But it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like suburbs_market_yield_pct or suburbs_market_yield_map, nor does it mention any conditions or exclusions. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
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.