list_rankingsEvery ranking this index publishes, with the exact method behind each and the areas an area-level version exists for. Read it before get_ranking, and quote the method alongside any figure taken from a list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds content scope and a reading-order caveat but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response format, ordering, size, or any rate limit or authentication needs. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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 a single tightly-packed sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the tool's resource scope ('Every ranking this index publishes') and compresses both content and usage guidance into one efficient clause.
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?
With no parameters, no output schema, and strong safety annotations, the description only needs to convey what the catalogue contains and how it fits into the workflow. It does so directly by listing the contents and explicitly saying to read this before get_ranking.
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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is no parameter surface for the description to clarify. The description still adds meaning by explaining what the empty call returns: every ranking, the method behind each, and the relevant areas.
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 names the resource ('every ranking this index publishes') and states exactly what is included: 'the exact method behind each' and 'the areas an area-level version exists for'. It also differentiates from get_ranking by instructing the agent to read it before calling get_ranking.
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 an explicit directive: 'Read it before get_ranking', establishing when this tool should be used in the workflow. It also states the follow-through obligation to 'quote the method alongside any figure taken from a list'. However, it does not explicitly describe when-not-to-use it or name alternative siblings with a conditional 'instead' statement.
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.