Estimate fair market rent by location and bedroom count. Includes Zillow and Census data, STR comparison, and vacancy rates. USDV Capital — Your Real Estate CFO.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | State | |
| bedrooms | Yes | Number of bedrooms | |
| location | Yes | City or neighborhood |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about data sources (Zillow, Census, STR comparison, vacancy rates), but does not disclose the return format or any behavioral details such as potential complexity or limitations. This is a moderate gap given there is no output schema.
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 short and front-loaded with the primary function. The second sentence adds relevant data source context but ends with a marketing slogan ('USDV Capital — Your Real Estate CFO') that does not serve a functional purpose. Slightly less concise than ideal due to this non-essential addition, but still efficient overall.
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 tool with no output schema, the description provides a good sense of the tool's scope and inputs, but it does not clarify what the result looks like (e.g., a single number, a range, a report). It also omits any limitations (e.g., geographic coverage, data freshness). Given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of annotations, the description is adequate but not fully complete.
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 provides descriptions for all three parameters (location, state, bedrooms), achieving 100% coverage. The description only restates that these inputs are used for the estimate, adding no additional semantics about formats, constraints, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the burden.
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 a specific action ('Estimate fair market rent') and identifies the key inputs ('location and bedroom count'), distinguishing this tool from sibling calculators like cashflow or STR revenue. The title 'Get Rent Estimate' reinforces the purpose, making it immediately clear what the tool does.
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 usage context (for estimating rent based on location/bedrooms) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like calc-rental_cashflow or markets-compare. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or alternate tools, so guidance is limited to implied context.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
