AcreLens

compare_properties

Compare 2–5 US properties side by side using the same analysis mode. Call this when the user is evaluating multiple parcels or listings and wants a comparative view. Kicks off the analyses asynchronously and returns a batch ID plus one report ID per property (in input order) to poll — scored results arrive via polling or the batch webhook, not inline. Consumes one analysis credit per property from your AcreLens account.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	Yes	Analysis lens to apply to every property.
`properties`	Yes	Array of 2–5 properties to compare.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	Yes	Batch status. Initially "processing"; transitions to "completed" once all per-property reports terminate.
`batch_id`	Yes	Unique batch ID grouping the report jobs created by this call.
`report_ids`	Yes	Per-property report IDs in the same order as the input properties array. Poll each individually or wait for the batch.completed webhook.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses async behavior, batch/report ID polling, non-inline results, and credit consumption per property. This is valuable context that annotations do not provide and significantly aids agent expectations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides usage context, then async/credit details. Each sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (async, batch, credits, multiple properties) and an existing output schema, the description covers all essential behavioral aspects: comparative purpose, async kickoff, polling mechanism, and credit cost. It does not need to explain return values due to the output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the baseline applies. The description adds no extra parameter-specific detail beyond mentioning 'same analysis mode' and '2–5 properties,' but it doesn't need to since the schema is exhaustive.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('US properties') with a clear scope (2–5) and a shared analysis mode. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools, which focus on single-property analysis, quick scores, solar potential, or state profiles.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Call this when the user is evaluating multiple parcels or listings and wants a comparative view.' It provides clear when-to-use guidance but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, though the contrast with siblings is implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All AcreLens tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a clearly distinct purpose: analyze_land for full property analysis, compare_properties for batch comparison, get_land_quick_score for quick screening, get_solar_potential for solar estimates, and get_state_land_profile for state-level context. No overlap or ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: analyze_land, compare_properties, get_land_quick_score, get_solar_potential, get_state_land_profile. Naming is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

5 tools is well-scoped for the land analysis domain. Each tool provides a distinct, necessary function without redundancy. The count is appropriate and not excessive.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core workflows: full analysis, comparison, quick screening, solar potential, and state context. Minor gaps exist (e.g., water access, soil data, or zoning details) but these are not essential for typical use cases.

Resources

Need Help?