Check a SINGLE Cook County PIN (14-digit) for over-assessment: latest certified AV + most recent clean sale, implied-market conversion, over-assessment ratio + appeal-window status. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pin | Yes | 14-digit Cook County PIN. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool is free and computes certain values, but does not disclose data freshness, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling for invalid PINs. Adequate but not thorough.
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?
Description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and outputs, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though slightly dense.
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, no annotations), the description covers the key inputs and outputs. It lacks return format details, but is sufficient for a straightforward check 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?
Only one parameter 'pin' with schema coverage 100%. The schema already describes it as '14-digit Cook County PIN'. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema's definition, remaining at the baseline.
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 'Check' and the resource 'a SINGLE Cook County PIN (14-digit) for over-assessment', listing the specific computed outputs. It distinguishes from sibling tools like overassessment_leads which likely handle multiple PINs.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies use for single PIN checks, but alternatives like overassessment_leads for multiple PINs are not mentioned. Context is implied but not clarified.
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 targets a distinct aspect of property data: permit windows, stalled projects, exemption flags, lien reports, overassessment leads (commercial vs single parcel), and county metadata. The descriptions clearly differentiate their purposes, with no functional overlap.
All tool names use a consistent underscore_case pattern with descriptive noun phrases (e.g., construction_window_leads, exemption_flags). No mixed conventions or cryptic abbreviations are present.
Seven tools provide a well-scoped set for the server's purpose (property analytics for various stakeholders). Neither too few nor too many—each tool serves a clear, distinct function.
The tool set covers core workflows for permit tracking, exemption auditing, lien analysis, and overassessment detection. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no general property detail lookup), but the server seems intentionally focused on lead generation and flagged issues.