Run a BRRRR (buy-rehab-rent-refinance-repeat) analysis.
Provide either `address` to analyze an existing listing, or the raw inputs
(`purchase_price`, `rehab_cost`, `arv`, `monthly_rent`) for an ad-hoc deal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| arv | No | ||
| address | No | ||
| rehab_cost | No | ||
| monthly_rent | No | ||
| purchase_price | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavior on its own. It discloses the either/or input structure and that the tool performs a BRRRR analysis. However, it doesn't specify what the analysis returns (e.g., cash-on-cash return, ROI) or what happens if both input modes are provided, leaving significant behavioral 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?
The description is two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded and the alternative input modes clearly separated. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy or filler.
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?
The description covers the key input modes and parameter grouping, but lacks several contextual details: the output format or metrics of the analysis, error handling for missing/invalid inputs, and behavior when both `address` and raw inputs are supplied. Since there is no output schema, the absence of return-value information is a notable gap.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameters. It names all five parameters and explains their roles: `address` for an existing listing, and `purchase_price`, `rehab_cost`, `arv`, `monthly_rent` as raw inputs. This grouping adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.
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's function: 'Run a BRRRR analysis.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the expanded acronym 'buy-rehab-rent-refinance-repeat' adds clarity. The two input modes are mentioned, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on property data retrieval.
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 explicitly states the two usage modes: provide an `address` for an existing listing, or provide the raw inputs for an ad-hoc deal. This gives clear context on when and how to invoke the tool. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like `get_property` or `get_comps`, but the domain distinction is evident.
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.
Most tools are clearly distinct, but analyze_brrrr overlaps with get_property when given an address and strategy=brrrr, since both can return a BRRRR analysis. The ad-hoc input option for analyze_brrrr and the broader strategy support in get_property help clarify, yet the boundary is not fully crisp.
Tool names are mostly snake_case with a verb_object pattern (analyze_brrrr, get_comps, get_property, search_deals), but area_stats and top_investment_areas are noun phrases, and whoami is a standalone command. These minor deviations are easy to predict and remember.
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for a real estate deal analysis domain. Each tool covers a distinct high-level task (search, analysis, comps, stats, ranking, identity) without unnecessary redundancy or excessive fragmentation.
The surface covers the core lifecycle: searching deals, analyzing properties (flip, rental, brrrr), pulling comps, getting area stats, and ranking areas. A minor gap is the lack of a dedicated 'analyze_flip' or 'analyze_rental' tool, but get_property with strategy handles those cases, so no dead ends.