价格参考库：同类资产的真实成交/挂牌区间汇总（含来源与时间；非平台估价，平台不作价值鉴定）。需 API Key。
Args:
cat: 类别（T1–T8 或其名称）；want_range=true 时必填，返回该类别的合计区间
kw: 标题关键词过滤（仅列表模式）
page/size: 分页（仅列表模式）
want_range: true=改查该 cat 的价格区间汇总（/price-refs/range）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kw | No | ||
| cat | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| size | No | ||
| want_range | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the API key requirement, that this is a reference library rather than platform appraisal, and that records include source/time. However, it does not explicitly state read-only vs. write behavior, rate limits, error cases, or result shape.
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?
Front-loads the resource definition, then documents parameters compactly in a structured Args block. Every sentence and line contributes meaning without redundant restatement.
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?
Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, authentication, mode behavior, and all parameters. It stops short of describing list-mode result contents or pagination behavior, so it is not fully complete.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. The Args section defines every parameter's role and mode dependency, including cat's conditional requirement under want_range=true and want_range's function as a mode switch.
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?
States a specific resource (price reference library) and content (real transaction/listing ranges for similar assets, with source/time), and explicitly distinguishes itself from platform valuation. An agent can tell what the tool returns and how it differs from appraisal functionality.
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?
Explains the two modes through want_range and which parameters apply in each: cat is required for range mode, while kw/page/size are list-only. It also notes the API key requirement. It does not name alternative sibling tools or give when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of a full 5.
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.