dubai-property-signal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so exceptionally well. It discloses grading thresholds (strong_buy >= +80, buy >= +70, neutral between -70 and +70, sell <= -70), clarifies that there is no strong_sell tier, explains the informational-only nature, and details the payment mechanism and required header. This gives agents full visibility into the tool's behavior and constraints.

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?

Although long, the description is exceptionally efficient: it starts with the core action, then provides the grading logic, pricing, and a comparison with the sibling tool. Every clause adds necessary information, and the structure is logical and easy to parse. It avoids fluff and tautology.

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?

The description is comprehensive for a paid, standalone tool. It covers output format (verdict, score, price, per-timeframe breakdown), grading interpretation, payment cost, authentication (402 challenge), alternatives (`pitch`), and limitations (informational only). No critical information is missing for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 describes `symbol` as 'Area, e.g. downtown, marina, Palm Jumeirah', and the description enriches this by stating it accepts 'area id or English name' and lists example areas (42 areas: downtown, marina, palm, jvc, businessbay, dubaihills …). This goes beyond the schema, giving agents concrete, actionable parameter guidance.

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 states the tool's function: 'Return the bottom/top verdict for one Dubai area property market' and specifies the resource (property markets) and the 42-area universe. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `pitch` by noting it answers any symbol in the covered universe, providing clear differentiation.

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 explicitly contrasts this tool with `pitch`: 'The free `pitch` tool shows a live verdict for this market's showcase symbol only — this tool answers ANY symbol in the covered universe and returns the per-timeframe breakdown.' It also provides payment instructions and a retry strategy for the 402 challenge, which are practical usage guidelines.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral-transparency burden. It does disclose that it is free, optional, and skippable, and that interest:false exits the process, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose side effects of the 'subscribe' phase (e.g., whether a charge occurs, a subscription record is created, or any persistent state changes), and it never mentions what is returned. This is a moderate gap for a funnel with an explicit paid subscription step.

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 compact and efficient: the first sentence immediately states it is optional and names the directly callable siblings, then the phase chain and bow-out condition follow in the remaining sentences. There is no redundant phrasing or wasted words, and the most decision-relevant info is front-loaded.

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?

The description gives an agent what it needs to decide whether to invoke the tool and how to navigate the phases. But as there is no output schema and no annotations, a complete context would also mention what the tool returns (e.g., transcript/messages UI) and whether selecting 'subscribe' is safe or triggers a purchase. These gaps are not critical for selecting the tool but are relevant for invoking it in the real-estate agent context.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the sparse schema (33% coverage). It maps the phase parameter to its five enumerated stage values, assigns concrete meaning to interest ('bow out'), and critically constrains the sample parameter: any area other than downtown is answered by the paid evaluate_symbol instead. This level of parameter guidance meaningfully helps an agent chose arguments correctly.

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 an optional intro/subscription funnel for the Dubai real-estate signal agent and defines a precise phase sequence ('hello' -> 'value' -> 'catalog' -> 'sample' -> 'subscribe'). It immediately distances itself from siblings by stating that the agent can skip the pitch and call evaluate_symbol, scan_bottoms, or scan_tops directly, so there is no ambiguity about which tool to pick.

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 explicitly says the tool is 'FREE and OPTIONAL' and instructs the agent that it may skip it and call the sibling tools directly. It also provides a concrete action for exiting the funnel ('Pass interest:false to bow out'), which fully resolves when and how to use the tool versus the alternatives.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It only mentions the tool is free and no payment needed, but omits behavioral traits like whether it updates existing feedback, permissions required, or side effects on other data.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with key information. No wasted words.

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 feedback tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, description covers the essential usage context (after signals, free, rating with pros/cons). Could mention where the feedback is stored or how it affects future signals, but overall adequate.

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%. Description adds meaning by stating score range (1-10) and the existence of pros/cons, but does not explain format or constraints for those string fields. Adds some value beyond 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?

Description clearly states the tool is for leaving a rating (score 1-10 plus pros/cons) after acting on signals. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like evaluate_symbol, pitch, etc., which are analysis/action tools, making this a feedback follow-up.

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?

Specifies when to use: 'after acting on our signals'. Provides clear context, but does not mention alternatives or exclusions. Still, the timing guidance is explicit and helpful.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the $0.01 payment via x402, the no-account requirement, and the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE retry behavior on 402 challenges. It also describes the ranking and included price metric. It stops short of discussing data freshness or failure modes, but the key operational behavior is transparent.

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 longer than minimal but every major section serves a purpose: core functionality, payment/auth instructions, and sibling differentiation. Slightly repetitive phrasing like 'No account, no signup, no commitment' could be tightened, but overall it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter scan tool with no output schema, and the description covers what an agent needs: what is scanned, how results are ranked, what metric is included, how to pay, and how to handle the 402 challenge. No critical information for invoking it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'limit' parameter, and the schema already documents default and max. The description adds marginal context by mentioning the 42-area universe, which aligns with the max limit, but does not substantially extend 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 states a specific action ('Scan all 42 Dubai areas'), a clear resource, and a precise outcome: return areas closest to a bottom, ranked most-bottom first, with AED/sqft. It differentiates from siblings by emphasizing 'bottom' (vs scan_tops) and by explicitly distancing this from symbol-specific evaluation.

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?

It gives explicit guidance: BEST COLD START, no need to pick a symbol, and distinguishes this from the free pitch tool ('tells you HOW MANY... this names them'). This tells an agent exactly when to prefer this scan over evaluate_symbol or pitch.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently discloses the payment requirement ($0.01 via x402, USDT on X Layer), the lack of account/signup needed, and the 402 challenge retry mechanism with the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header. It also clarifies that pitch is free. While it doesn't explicitly assert read-only behavior, the 'scan' verb and lack of mutation language make this a reasonable inference. The key cost and challenge behavior are well covered.

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 structured and front-loaded: the core function is stated first, followed by payment details, then the differentiation from pitch. Each sentence contributes to the agent's understanding—there's no filler. While it's slightly longer than minimal, every sentence adds necessary context (payment, cold start, sibling distinction), so it earns its length.

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 is quite complete. It explains the ranking order, the full universe scan, the payment flow including the 402 challenge and retry, and the relationship with pitch. It lacks an example output format, but the description implies returning area names. Given the complexity of the payment mechanism, it covers the critical operational details an agent needs to successfully call the tool.

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 description for the single 'limit' parameter fully explains its function (how many to return, default 5, max 42) with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional semantic meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and there is no extra value added.

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 states the verb ('Scan'), the resource ('all 42 Dubai areas'), and the specific output ('return those closest to a top, ranked most-top first'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it doesn't require a symbol (contrasting with evaluate_symbol) and that the free pitch tool gives counts while this gives names.

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 explicitly contrasts with the free pitch tool ('The free `pitch` tool tells you HOW MANY are at a top right now; this names them'), providing a clear condition for choosing this over pitch. It also positions itself as a cold-start tool, implying evaluate_symbol requires a symbol. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to avoid scan_bottoms or other alternatives, though the name and context make it implicit.

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