Skip to main content
Glama

USDV Capital — Your Real Estate CFO

by io.github.USDVCapital

eligibility-check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether financing is available through USDV Capital's capital partner network for a specific real estate investment scenario — fix and flip, DSCR rental, bridge loan, ground up construction, Airbnb short-term rental, or BRRRR. Returns matching capital solutions with estimated terms. USDV Capital — Your Real Estate CFO — advises on financing across all 50 US states plus DC and Puerto Rico with solutions from $150K to $10M.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stateYesState where the property is located
loanAmountYesRequested financing amount
loanPurposeYesLoan purpose: purchase, refinance, cash_out_refinance, rehab, construction
propertyTypeYesProperty type: single_family, multi_family_2_4, multi_family_5_plus, mixed_use, commercial, land, ground_up
experienceLevelNoExperience: first_time, 1_3_deals, 4_10_deals, 10_plus_deals
creditScoreRangeNoCredit score range: below_620, 620_659, 660_699, 700_739, 740_plus

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds behavioral context by stating the return value (matching capital solutions with estimated terms) and geographic/amount coverage. This complements the annotations without contradiction.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is two sentences with the core statement front-loaded. The second sentence, while containing a marketing tagline, provides useful scope information about state coverage and loan amounts. No redundant or overly verbose content.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With 6 parameters, 4 required, and no output schema, the description explains the return type and covers scenario types plus state/amount range. It does not detail parameter formats, but those are in the schema, making it sufficiently complete for a read-only eligibility tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by enumerating investment scenarios (fix and flip, BRRRR, etc.) that map to loanPurpose/propertyType concepts, and by mentioning the $150K-$10M range, which clarifies loanAmount limits.

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's function: checking financing availability through a specific network for various real estate investment scenarios. It lists concrete scenario types (fix and flip, DSCR rental, etc.) and specifies the return of matching capital solutions with terms, distinguishing it from siblings focused on calculations or prequalification.

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 use for eligibility checks but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like action-prequalify or eligibility-products. It does not state exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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 toolsInspect
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