mcp.xynaptic

property-price

Xynaptic Property Price — official median price per sqm for a French commune and property type, computed from real transactions (DVF): median, mean, min/max, volume. GET ?city=Paris&type=Appartement. Robust median. [price: $0.020 per call, x402/USDC]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	No	query parameters

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 2, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / body

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "JSON body for POST endpoints (e.g. insurance, ai-chat, production-risk)",
-  "type": "object"
-}

changedInput schema / properties / params / description

Previous value: -"query parameters, e.g. {city: 'Paris', type: 'Appartement'}"New value: +"query parameters"

addedInput schema / properties / params / properties

Added value: +{
+  "city": {
+    "description": "example: \"Paris\"",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "median_price_m2": {
+    "description": "example: 9538",
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  "type": {
+    "description": "example: \"Appartement\"",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}

addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[]
```

First observedOct 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the data provenance (real DVF transactions), the delivered statistics (median, mean, min/max, volume), a 'robust median' caveat, and a per-call price with the x402/USDC payment mechanism. It omits auth prerequisites beyond payment, rate limits, and error/edge-case behavior.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then method/provenance, then a concrete call example, then pricing last. Every clause earns its place with no padding.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by naming the returned statistics and the pricing model, which is enough for a simple lookup. It leaves minor gaps around valid city/type values and the stray median_price_m2 parameter, but an agent has what it needs to invoke it.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's example (?city=Paris&type=Appartement) shows intended values, adding mild value, but it never explains the schema's unexpected 'median_price_m2' query parameter, and no enum constraints clarify the valid city/type domains.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource: median price per sqm for a French commune and property type, with a named data source (DVF) and returned statistics. Clear enough to distinguish a median-price lookup from most siblings, but it never names or contrasts the adjacent tools (property-valuation, property-market, property-compare), so differentiation is left to inference.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description shows a sample call ('GET ?city=Paris&type=Appartement') but gives no when-to-use, when-not, or alternative guidance. An agent cannot tell from this text why it should pick property-price over property-valuation or property-market.

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

All mcp.xynaptic tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?