DealScanner

search_deals

Search DealScanner investment properties.

Args:
    query: Address, municipality, or neighborhood text to match.
    strategy: Investment lens - one of "flip", "rental", "brrrr".
    min_price / max_price: Listing price bounds (USD).
    beds / baths: Minimum bedroom / bathroom count.
    property_class: Comma-separated neighborhood grades (A,B,C,D).
    source: "market" (listed) or "sheriff" (auction).
    limit: Max results (1-100).

Returns a dict with `results`, `total`, and pagination info.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`beds`	No
`baths`	No
`limit`	No
`query`	No
`source`	No	market
`strategy`	No	flip
`max_price`	No
`min_price`	No
`property_class`	No

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It details parameter semantics and explicitly states the return shape ('dict with results, total, and pagination info'). It does not discuss permissions or side effects, but the search operation is inherently read-only, and the return contract is disclosed.

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 a clean 'Args:' list with one line per parameter, followed by a one-line return summary. Every sentence adds information, there is no filler, and the structure makes parameters scannable.

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?

For a 9-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is remarkably complete: all parameters are documented, valid values are given, units are specified, and the return object is summarized. The only minor omission is exact pagination shape, but that is not essential for initial selection.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: query matches address/municipality/neighborhood, strategy values, price bounds in USD, minimum beds/baths, comma-separated property classes, market vs sheriff source, and limit range (1-100). This is exactly the meaning an agent needs.

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 opens with 'Search DealScanner investment properties,' clearly stating the verb (search) and resource (DealScanner investment properties). The parameter list and sibling tool names (get_property, area_stats, top_investment_areas) show this is the listing-search tool, differentiating it from single-property or market-stats tools.

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 for when to use this tool: when searching DealScanner investment properties by query, strategy, price, beds/baths, class, and source. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool names make the use cases obvious, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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

All DealScanner 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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count5/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?