list_favoritesThe buildings saved on the signed-in account, with their current figures. Buildings that have fallen below the publication gate since being saved are reported as such rather than dropped silently. The one tool here that reads anything account-specific.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it reports buildings that fell below the publication gate instead of silently dropping them, and it clarifies reliance on the signed-in account.
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?
Three concise sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core behavior, the second explains an important edge case, and the third differentiates the tool from its siblings. The main purpose 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?
For a simple zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description covers what is returned, how account scoping works, and what happens to non-publishable saved buildings. No output schema exists, but the return semantics are described sufficiently.
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?
There are zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The description instead adds useful output and scoping context, which is more than needed given the empty 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 the tool lists buildings saved on the signed-in account along with their current figures. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is the one tool here that reads account-specific data.
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 provides clear context: use this tool when account-scoped saved buildings are needed, and it explicitly signals that sibling tools are not account-specific. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating explicit exclusions, but the guidance is sufficient for a zero-parameter tool.
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 resource and action: fetch retrieves any full record by id or URL, get_area handles area-level medians, get_building gives building records, get_building_transactions lists underlying transactions, get_city_overview provides citywide scope, get_methodology explains definitions, get_ranking returns a single sorted ranking, get_villa_community focuses on villa communities, list_favorites accesses account-specific data, list_rankings enumerates available rankings, and search resolves names to ids. No two tools have overlapping purposes, even when addressing similar domains (e.g., list_rankings vs. get_ranking are clearly differentiated by singular vs. plural and availability of methods).
All tool names use a consistent lowercase_with_underscores format and follow a clear verb_noun pattern: get_ for retrieving specific entities, list_ for enumerations, search for lookup, and fetch for generic retrieval. This makes the API predictable and easy to navigate.
With 11 tools, the server is well-scoped for a real estate index covering city, areas, buildings, villas, transactions, rankings, methodology, and account favorites. Each tool serves a unique function without unnecessary redundancy, fitting the typical range for a purpose-built data server.
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for a read-only data server: search, area and building details, transaction histories, citywide overview, rankings and their methods, villa communities, methodology reference, and saved favorites. There are no obvious gaps—users can navigate from search to specific records, drill into transactions, compare rankings, and retrieve the methodology behind any figure.