Generates market valuations, price-per-sqft comps, and annual tax estimates ($0.005 USDC)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zipCode | Yes | 5-digit US ZIP code | |
| bedrooms | Yes | Number of bedrooms | |
| squareFeet | Yes | Property building square footage |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| success | Yes | Estimation status | |
| valuationComps | Yes | Valuation and tax estimates object |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / bedrooms / descriptionAdded value: +"Number of bedrooms"Input schema / properties / squareFeet / descriptionAdded value: +"Property building square footage"Input schema / properties / zipCode / descriptionAdded value: +"5-digit US ZIP code"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "success": {
+ "description": "Estimation status",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "valuationComps": {
+ "description": "Valuation and tax estimates object",
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "success",
+ "valuationComps"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact the annotations lack: the $0.005 USDC cost per call. It says nothing about latency, rate limits, or freshness of comps, so it is incrementally but not richly 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?
One front-loaded sentence naming the three outputs, with the cost appended parenthetically. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical cost could arguably be its own clause for clarity.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. What is missing is routing context versus real_estate_calculator and any hint about data freshness or coverage, which matters for an open-world valuation 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so zipCode, bedrooms, and squareFeet are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Generates) and three concrete deliverables (market valuations, price-per-sqft comps, annual tax estimates), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not differentiate from the sibling real_estate_calculator, which likely overlaps, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. With real_estate_calculator among siblings, the agent has no basis in the description for choosing between them.
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.