NDI-MCP-Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the data source ('derived from closed comps') but lacks details on behavioral traits like rate limits, error handling, or response format. This leaves gaps for a tool that likely involves data retrieval.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by usage context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate for a simple lookup tool but lacks completeness. It explains the purpose and usage but omits details on output format, data freshness, or potential limitations, which could be important for effective use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameters (state and property_type). The description adds context by linking parameters to benchmarks, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema offers, meeting the baseline for high 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 action ('Get'), the resource ('cap rate and price/SF benchmarks'), and the source ('derived from closed comps'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_market_summary or search_comps by focusing on benchmarks rather than summaries or raw comps.

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?

It provides a clear context for use ('to determine if a deal is priced above or below market'), which helps guide when to apply this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as get_market_summary for broader data.

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