UK Business Tools - Ledgerhall

Search Price Paid Transactions by Postcode

dd_land_title_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search HM Land Registry Price Paid Index by postcode or address.

Returns up to 10 recent sale transactions for the postcode: price, date, address, property type, and tenure (Freehold/Leasehold). Covers England and Wales only. Postcode gives the most reliable results — a full address is also accepted and the postcode is extracted automatically.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address_or_postcode`	Yes	UK property address or postcode. Postcode is most reliable: e.g. 'NG1 1AB'. Full address also accepted.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`total`	Yes	Number of Price Paid transactions returned. Capped at 10 by the upstream SPARQL query.
`postcode`	Yes	Normalised UK postcode extracted from the input.
`transactions`	No	Recent Price Paid transactions for the postcode, sorted newest first.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, such as the explicit limit of 10 recent transactions, the returned fields, and the automatic postcode extraction from full addresses. It also discloses the England/Wales scope, enriching the agent's understanding of expected behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three concise, information-dense sentences that front-load the core purpose, then detail outputs and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the input format, output contents, geographic scope, and data source, making it self-sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. The presence of an output schema relieves the description from detailing return structure, and annotations cover safety aspects.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides a detailed description of the sole parameter, including examples and reliability notes. The tool description largely repeats this information without adding new semantic meaning, so it does not exceed the baseline for 100% schema description coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('HM Land Registry Price Paid Index'), and distinguishes it from generic property tools by naming the exact dataset and coverage (England and Wales). It also outlines the returned fields, making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context on how to use the tool, including geographic coverage ('Covers England and Wales only') and reliability tips ('Postcode gives the most reliable results — a full address is also accepted'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, which prevents a higher score.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All UK Business Tools - Ledgerhall tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are well-grouped by domain prefixes (dd_, gov_, law_, prop_) with clear descriptions that differentiate them. However, there is minor overlap, e.g., dd_search could be used instead of individual searches, and dd_fetch versus dedicated profile tools might cause confusion.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with domain-specific prefixes (dd_, gov_, law_, prop_). Names are descriptive and predictable, e.g., dd_charity_search, gov_govuk_search, law_bills_search_bills.

Tool Count4/5

70 tools is high but justified by the broad scope covering due diligence, government, legal, and property domains. Each domain has a reasonable number of tools (about 15-20 each). The count is on the upper end but still manageable.

Completeness5/5

The tool set is comprehensive across all domains: full CRUD for companies and charities, detailed legal research (cases, legislation, parliament, citations), property data (EPC, planning, price paid, rentals), and government information. No obvious gaps for the intended use cases.

Resources

Need Help?