Optimize real estate investment portfolio across up to 5 areas. Returns expected return, risk score, Sharpe ratio. | 不動産投資ポートフォリオ最適化。最大5エリアのリターン・リスク・シャープレシオを算出。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| targets | Yes | 比較対象エリア（2〜5件） | |
| optimizeFor | No | 最適化目標 | risk_adjusted |
| riskTolerance | No | リスク許容度 | medium |
| includeMarkdown | No | ||
| investmentHorizon | No | 投資期間 | 5y |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint:true, destructiveHint:false, openWorldHint:false), so the description only adds the return metrics. This is a minor addition, and the description does not disclose limitations beyond the 'up to 5 areas' constraint already in the schema. No contradiction 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence (plus a bilingual translation) that front-loads the purpose and output. No fluff or repetition; every clause adds 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?
For a tool with 5 parameters including an array of nested objects, the description provides only high-level output metrics. It lacks explanation of how optimization works or how parameters like optimizeFor affect the result, though the schema covers parameter semantics. Given the presence of annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but could be richer.
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 coverage is 80%, so most parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds minimal parameter insight: 'up to 5 areas' mirrors the maxItems constraint, and it does not explain optimizeFor, riskTolerance, or investmentHorizon. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.
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 the verb 'Optimize' and the resource 'real estate investment portfolio' with a scope of 'up to 5 areas,' and lists the output metrics (expected return, risk score, Sharpe ratio). This distinguishes it from analytical siblings like compare_prefectures or cross_analyze_real_estate_market, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many siblings (e.g., compare_prefectures, scenario_what_if). It does not state the optimal use case or mention exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the name and description alone.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., analyze_renovation_yield vs recommend_renovation_targets, multiple scoring functions). While descriptions provide some differentiation, an agent could easily confuse tools like assess_property_risk, assess_family_friendly_score, and composite_value_score, all of which aggregate multiple axes into a single score.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (analyze_, assess_, get_, simulate_, etc.), but a few deviate with noun phrases (composite_value_score, portfolio_optimizer, scenario_what_if) or adjective-led names (quick_visual_summary). The pattern is largely consistent with minor exceptions, making it predictable overall.
With 33 tools, the surface is quite heavy and exceeds the 25-tool threshold. While the server covers a broad domain (real estate analysis, simulation, contract review, reporting), many tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple scoring functions). The count feels overwhelming for an agent to manage efficiently, though the scope is comprehensive.
The tool set covers the primary workflows of real estate intel: search/discovery, data retrieval, scoring, simulation, reporting, and contract support. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct property transaction listing lookup or lease-specific analysis), but these are not core to the server's stated purpose. The lifecycle of analysis is well-supported.