Detailed cost of living data for one ZIP code. Use when get_zip_profile's cost section isn't sufficient depth. Includes fair market rents, housing cost burden, regional price indices, and affordability metrics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zip | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description fully informs behavior. It details included data (fair market rents, housing cost burden, etc.) and implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose any limitations or 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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage guidance, no wasted words. Efficiently conveys key information.
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?
Given only one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about the tool's data scope and relationship to siblings. Could add detail on return format but not critical.
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?
Schema has one parameter 'zip' with 0% description coverage. Description mentions 'one ZIP code' but does not explicitly define the parameter's format, constraints, or example values beyond the tool's purpose.
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?
Description clearly states it provides detailed cost of living data for one ZIP code and distinguishes itself from sibling tool get_zip_profile by specifying when to use it instead.
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?
Explicitly advises using this tool when get_zip_profile's cost section is insufficient, providing clear context. However, it does not mention other alternatives or when not to use.
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.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose. Domain-specific profiles (e.g., get_air_quality_profile) are explicitly for deeper dives after get_zip_profile, while search, reverse geocode, research, and methodology tools each serve unique roles with no overlap.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_<domain>_profile, search_zips, reverse_geocode, compare_zips, get_research, get_methodology, etc. The naming is predictable and clear, with no mixing of conventions.
22 tools is slightly above the typical well-scoped range, but each tool addresses a specific need (12 domain profiles, search, geocoding, articles, methodology, ping). The count is appropriate for the breadth of data offered.
The tool surface covers the full workflow: discover (search_zips, get_search_fields), retrieve (get_zip_profile, domain profiles), compare (compare_zips), and ancillary (reverse_geocode, get_research, get_methodology). There are no dead ends or obvious gaps.
