Get the full DealScanner analysis for one property by street address.
Args:
address: Full property address.
strategy: "flip", "rental", or "brrrr".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | ||
| strategy | No | flip |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'gets' analysis, implying read-only behavior, but it doesn't confirm this or disclose any other behaviors such as error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the address isn't found. The description adds little beyond the purpose itself.
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 remarkably concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, and the Args section is minimal but clear. Every sentence contributes value, with no wasted words or redundant information.
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?
For a simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the basic use case, but it lacks detail on the return format. Since there is no output schema, the description should explain what 'full DealScanner analysis' includes or how it is structured. It also doesn't mention error scenarios, leaving the context incomplete for an agent that needs to know what to expect in the response.
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 input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains 'address' as 'Full property address' and lists allowed values for 'strategy' (flip, rental, or brrrr). However, it doesn't explain what each strategy means or mention the default behavior when strategy is omitted, so the compensation is only partial.
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 what the tool does: 'Get the full DealScanner analysis for one property by street address.' This is specific with an action verb, resource, and scope, and it differentiates from sibling tools like get_comps or area_stats which presumably return narrower data.
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 implies when to use this tool: when you have a specific street address and want the full analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or situations where a different tool would be more appropriate, leaving the usage guidance implicit rather than explicit.
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.