fetchRetrieves the full text of a single trazimstan.hr listing by its ID, as returned by the search tool. Use it to read details before citing a listing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Listing ID returned by `search` (UUID) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| url | Yes | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| metadata | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description should disclose behavioral traits. It implies read-only but doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or response format. Adequate but leaves gaps.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded purpose, no wasted words. Compact and efficient.
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 low complexity, high schema coverage, and presence of output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and how it relates to siblings. Missing some behavioral context holds it back from a 5.
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 coverage is 100% with a meaningful description. The tool description adds minimal value by echoing that the ID comes from 'search'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 retrieves the full text of a single listing by ID, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing the 'search' tool as the source of IDs.
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?
Explicitly says to use it 'before citing a listing' and implies usage after 'search'. No exclusions or alternatives, but adequate for this simple 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.
Fetch and get_listing have nearly identical descriptions and likely duplicate functionality. Similarly, search and search_listings both perform searches with overlapping intent. This makes it unclear which tool to use.
Tool names are inconsistent: some use underscores (get_listing, get_price_stats), others are bare verbs (fetch, search), and one uses a compound (search_listings). No clear pattern emerges.
With 5 tools, the count is reasonable for a real estate information server. However, the presence of duplicate tools suggests the set is not well-scoped and could be reduced to 3.
The server covers search, detail retrieval, and price statistics, which are the core needs. However, it lacks advanced filtering or comparison features, and the redundancy between tools does not add value.