Returns what Curagent currently supports: which US states, which document types, and how analysis is priced. Call this before analyzing to confirm the property's state is in scope. Curagent currently supports Florida real estate transactions only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It transparently notes that the tool returns information and highlights a critical limitation (Florida only), which goes beyond a generic read-only hint. It does not explicitly state side effects, but as a pure query tool, the absence of side effects is implied.
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 three sentences that are front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a direct usage instruction and a key scope detail. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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?
Despite having no output schema and zero parameters, the description fully explains what the tool returns, when to call it, and the current geographic limitation. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly within the context of the sibling tools.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter details needed; the description focuses on the output contents, which aligns with the empty schema.
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 it returns supported US states, document types, and pricing, which is a specific verb+resource. It is distinct from the sibling tools analyze_title_documents and get_credit_balance, as it answers coverage questions rather than performing analysis or checking credits.
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 instructs to 'Call this before analyzing to confirm the property's state is in scope,' providing a clear when-to-use directive. It also gives a concrete example of current Florida-only support, helping the agent decide if this tool applies.
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: coverage lookup, credit balance check, and title document analysis. The descriptions explicitly delineate responsibilities, and there is no meaningful overlap that could cause an agent to pick the wrong tool.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: analyze_title_documents, check_coverage, get_credit_balance. The naming is predictable and makes the function of each tool immediately clear.
Three tools is well-scoped for this server's purpose: one core analysis tool and two lightweight preflight utilities. Each tool earns its place, and the count appropriately supports the workflow without unnecessary bulk.
The tool surface fully covers the intended workflow: confirm coverage, verify credit balance, then run the analysis. No obvious gaps exist for the stated domain of Florida title risk assessment, and the supporting preflight tools eliminate dead ends.
