START HERE — your first call to this agent MUST be pitch (free, no payment). Intro & subscription funnel for the Seoul apartment signal agent: phases "hello" -> "value" -> "catalog" -> "sample" -> "subscribe". Pass interest:false to bow out.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| phase | No | ||
| symbol | No | District for the "sample" phase. The free sample serves only this market’s showcase (강남구); anything else is answered by the paid evaluate_symbol (x402). | |
| interest | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the funnel flow and that it's free, but does not disclose whether it creates a session, stores state, or has side effects. Adequate but not exhaustive.
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 reasonably concise, front-loaded with the key instruction 'START HERE', and each clause adds value. Slightly verbose but well organized.
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 no output schema and moderate complexity, the description explains the input flow well but does not describe the return value or expected response format, leaving the agent to infer behavior.
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 low (33%), but the tool description explains the phase enum values and the symbol parameter's limitation (only free for 강남구). The interest parameter is also addressed. Adds significant meaning 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 clearly states this tool is the mandatory first call, defines the subscription funnel phases, and distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying when to use evaluate_symbol instead (for non-default districts in sample phase).
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?
Explicitly states it must be the first call and hints at bowing out with interest:false. Provides an alternative for the sample phase. However, it does not cover when to use other sibling tools like rate or scan_*.
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.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: pitch for onboarding, rate for feedback, evaluate_symbol for single-district paid analysis, and scan_bottoms/scan_tops for paid multi-district scans. No overlap in functionality.
Tools use a mix of single-word (pitch, rate) and verb_noun (evaluate_symbol, scan_bottoms, scan_tops) conventions. While mostly clear, the inconsistency in pattern is minor.
With only 5 tools, the set is lean and well-scoped for the niche domain of Seoul apartment signals. Each tool has a clear purpose and no tool seems superfluous or missing.
The tool set covers key workflows: onboarding (pitch), single-district analysis (evaluate_symbol), multi-district scans (scan_bottoms/scan_tops), and feedback (rate). A minor gap is the lack of a tool to list all districts or historical data, but the core functionality is solid.