USDV Capital — Your Real Estate CFO

calc-construction

Read-onlyIdempotent

Estimate construction and renovation costs by location, scope, and property type. Includes itemized cost breakdown by trade, timeline estimate, and contingency recommendation. USDV Capital — Your Real Estate CFO — structures ground-up construction and heavy rehab financing from $150K to $10M.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`state`	Yes	State
`location`	Yes	City or county
`projectType`	Yes	Project scope
`propertyType`	No	Property type
`qualityLevel`	No	Finish quality (default standard)
`sendReportTo`	No	Recipient email for the Capital Advisory Report. Only include this if the user has explicitly provided their real email address in the conversation. Do NOT invent, guess, or use placeholder addresses like example.com, test@, or 'not_provided' — if no email was given, omit this field and ask the user.
`squareFootage`	Yes	Total square footage

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful output details (itemized breakdown, timeline, contingency) and the financing context (USDV Capital), which hints at possible financing-related outputs. However, the financing sentence is promotional and not a clear behavioral disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The first sentence is concise and informative. The second sentence is a marketing tagline for USDV Capital, which does not help an agent select or invoke the tool correctly, reducing the overall efficiency of the description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, so the description must clarify return values. It lists key outputs (itemized costs, timeline, contingency) but the financing sentence adds ambiguity about whether financing offers are included. The description is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to anticipate all responses.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description mentions 'location, scope, and property type' but adds no additional detail beyond what the schema provides, thus not elevating the baseline score.

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 clearly states the tool estimates construction and renovation costs, with a specific verb ('Estimate') and resource ('construction and renovation costs'). It also lists key inputs (location, scope, property type) and outputs (itemized cost breakdown, timeline estimate, contingency recommendation), distinguishing it from sibling calculators like calc-brrrr or calc-flip_roi.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage by stating the tool's function, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No sibling tools are referenced, so an agent must infer when this is the right calculator based on the construction/renovation focus.

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

All USDV Capital — Your Real Estate CFO 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

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, especially the calculators and utilities. The markets-* group has five tools that all return market data, but each has a distinct focus (compare, nearby, screener, search, stats) with descriptions that clarify the differences. Overall, an agent can generally tell them apart, though the market tools could still cause minor confusion.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming convention is consistent across categories using lowercase with hyphens and a prefix (action-, calc-, deal-, eligibility-, markets-, util-). Within categories there is slight inconsistency, such as action-consultation (noun) vs action-prequalify (verb) vs action-send_report (verb_noun), but the overall pattern is predictable and readable.

Tool Count4/5

With 23 tools, the server covers a broad range of real estate CFO services: property analysis, market intelligence, eligibility, and client actions. This is slightly on the heavy side but each tool serves a distinct purpose within the domain. It could be trimmed, but the count is not unreasonable given the scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the core lifecycle of a real estate deal: market research, property-level analysis, calculators for various strategies, eligibility checking, and client engagement actions. Minor gaps exist—such as no tool for tracking existing deals or a general mortgage payment calculator—but the main workflows are well supported. Completeness is strong for the stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?