Skip to main content
Glama

Landprice

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Discover Tools

discover_tools
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find tools by describing the data or task. Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist for: SEC filings, financials, revenue, profit, FDA drugs, adverse events, FRED economic data, Census demographics, BLS jobs/unemployment/inflation, ATTOM real estate, ClinicalTrials, USPTO patents, weather, news, crypto, stocks. Returns the top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples) — each result is ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed. Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoAlias for query.
taskNoAlias for query.
limitNoMaximum number of tools to return (default 20, max 50)
queryYesNatural language description of what you want to do (e.g., "analyze housing market trends", "look up FDA drug approvals", "find trade data between countries"). Accepts task, q, description, search as aliases.
searchNoAlias for query.
descriptionNoAlias for query.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds valuable behavioral details: returns top-N tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas with curated examples, ready to call directly. No contradictions with annotations.

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 appropriately sized (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the key purpose. It efficiently conveys purpose, usage, and return value. Slight wordiness in listing many domains could be tightened, but overall effective.

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?

Given the tool's search/discovery nature, the description is complete: explains return format, parameter semantics, and usage priority. No output schema is needed as the description details what is returned. No gaps identified.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters well-described. The description reinforces that 'query' accepts natural language and mentions aliases, but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool finds tools by describing data or task, with numerous domain examples. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set', making its purpose unique and well-defined.

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 gives clear usage context: use when needing to browse, search, or discover existing tools. It advises calling this tool first when many tools are available. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide specific alternatives, which would improve the score.

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

All Landprice 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 tool clusters have unclear boundaries. `ask_pipeworx_beta` is explicitly described as currently identical to `ask_pipeworx`, `discover_tools` overlaps with `suggest_questions`, and the six Polymarket tools (`bet_research`, `polymarket_edges`, `polymarket_arbitrage`, etc.) blur together for opportunity-finding. An agent would struggle to pick the right tool without reading every description carefully.

Naming Consistency4/5

Naming is overwhelmingly consistent snake_case with a verb_noun or noun pattern (`ask_pipeworx`, `list_subscriptions`, `validate_claim`, `recent_changes`). The `polymarket_*` and `ask_pipeworx_*` families follow clear conventions. Minor deviations like `bet_research`, `entity_profile`, and `landprice_points` being noun-first are still readable and predictable.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is heavy for a server named 'Landprice' when exactly one tool (`landprice_points`) actually concerns land prices. The vast majority of tools constitute an unrelated general-purpose data research and prediction-market platform, making the count feel bloated and scattershot relative to the server's stated purpose.

Completeness3/5

For the actual broad scope revealed by the tools — structured data lookup, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, comparison, monitoring, and memory — the surface is reasonably complete with no obvious dead ends. However, for the 'Landprice' domain implied by the server name, coverage is nearly absent: only Japan is covered, with no other countries, address search, or property-level data.

Resources