Skip to main content
Glama

Gov Auctions

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Auctions Sold Comps

auctions_sold_comps
Read-onlyIdempotent

Historical SOLD prices for government auction items — the final hammer price of closed lots, which no upstream site keeps but Pipeworx retains. Use to answer "what do seized pickup trucks actually sell for" or to comp an asset. Filter by keyword (title match), asset_type, and/or state. Returns count, min/median/max/average final price, and recent examples. Only includes lots that have closed with a recorded final price.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax example lots to return (1-50, default 10).
stateNo2-letter state code.
keywordNoFree-text title match, e.g. "f-150", "excavator", "trailer".
asset_typeNoOne of: vehicle | equipment | realestate | electronics | other.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "asset_type": "vehicle",
+    "keyword": "f-150",
+    "limit": 15,
+    "state": "TX"
+  },
+  {
+    "asset_type": "equipment",
+    "keyword": "forklift"
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by stating that the data 'no upstream site keeps but Pipeworx retains' and that it 'only includes lots that have closed with a recorded final price'. This provides useful context beyond the annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences: first defines purpose and uniqueness, second gives usage guidance, third describes output. Every sentence is informative and concise with no wasted words.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns (count, min/median/max/average, recent examples), how to filter, and why it's unique. Despite no output schema, the description compensates adequately. For a tool with 4 optional parameters and aggregation, this is highly complete.

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% — all 4 parameters have clear descriptions. The description adds usage context ('filter by keyword, asset_type, and/or state' and explains output), but does not significantly enhance the semantic understanding of each parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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 it provides 'Historical SOLD prices for government auction items — the final hammer price of closed lots.' This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like 'auctions_search' (likely for active listings) and 'auction_lot_details' (for specific lot info).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly says 'Use to answer "what do seized pickup trucks actually sell for" or to comp an asset' and gives filtering examples. While it doesn't name alternative tools, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use this vs. other auction-related tools.

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

All Gov Auctions 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools occupy nearly the same question-answering niche: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical by its own description), ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim are easy to confuse. The polymarket suite also has overlapping edge/arbitrage/fill-risk boundaries, and discover_tools/suggest_questions both serve onboarding. The verbose descriptions help, but the set as a whole creates real misselection risk.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow clear snake_case verb_noun or domain-prefix patterns (auctions_search, polymarket_edges, subscribe/unsubscribe, remember/recall/forget). Minor inconsistencies exist: auction_lot_details is singular while the auction group is plural, and polymarket_edges versus polymarket_edge_tracker breaks the prefix pattern slightly. Overall the naming is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold and feels bloated for a server named 'Gov Auctions': only 5 tools actually concern auctions, while the rest are general Pipeworx research, prediction-market, memory, subscription, and utility tools. Even as a general data platform, the count is heavy and includes several overlapping meta-tools.

Completeness4/5

For the auction-specific surface, the set covers search, lot details, closing-soon, historical sold prices, and data coverage, which is a solid read-only lifecycle. The main gaps are non-critical: no auction-category browser, no auction-specific alert/subscription type, and no bidding workflow. The broad research/esolution tools fill in most adjacent data needs even if they dilute the server's stated focus.

Resources