Returns Flika's coverage: which states Flika is directly licensed in (can close transactions) and which additional states Flika has signed referral partners in. Call this first if you're unsure whether Flika can help with a specific geography.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It transparently describes the returned data (states with direct licensing and referral partners). Although it doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior, the description implies a query operation without side effects.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return shape. Could be more explicit about format, but is adequate for agent decision-making.
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?
No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the return content beyond what the empty schema provides.
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 returns Flika's coverage including states with direct licensing and referral partners. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying a unique purpose, and explicitly suggests calling this tool first for geographic checks.
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?
Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this first if you're unsure whether Flika can help with a specific geography.' While no when-not or alternatives are given, the context is clear and helpful.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, from agent profiles and comparisons to market data and lead management. Overlaps like find_agent vs find_public_agent are explicitly differentiated by live vs directory status.
All tools use snake_case and the 'scout.' prefix, but they mix verb_noun (e.g., compare_agents, search_listings) and noun_noun (e.g., agent_profile, coverage) patterns. However, the naming remains predictable and readable overall.
With 18 tools, the server covers agent discovery, brokerage info, market data, listings, lead management, referrals, and licensing—well-scoped for a real estate assistant without redundancy.
The tool set covers all key workflows: agent and brokerage search, market insights, school data, listing search, lead generation and purchase, referral management, and license verification, with no obvious gaps for its domain.
