Divar Intelligence MCP

dv_assess_price

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compares a listing’s asking price with like-for-like ads to judge price reasonableness, and abstains when comparable evidence is insufficient.

Instructions

Compare asking price against like-for-like ads or abstain. Evidence quality is a heuristic, never a probability or certified valuation.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "listing": "<listing>"
    },
    "name": "dv_assess_price"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`listing`	Yes
`request`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Default
`data`	Yes
`warnings`	No
`schema_version`	No	1.0

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not burdened with basic safety disclosure. It still adds meaningful behavioral context: evidence quality is heuristic and the tool may abstain rather than produce a probability or certified valuation.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the caveat. Every sentence contributes to purpose or behavioral expectation.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has a required listing string and a large optional SearchRequest object with zero schema descriptions, yet the description does not explain either input. Output schema and annotations cover returns and safety, but the input guidance is far too thin for this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description says nothing about the two parameters. It does not explain what format 'listing' expects or how the optional nested 'request' object and its many filters should be used, leaving the schema names to carry nearly all parameter meaning.

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?

The description names a specific action and resource: compare an asking price against like-for-like ads. It also rules out treating the result as a certified valuation, but it does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as dv_compare or dv_similar.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'Compare asking price against like-for-like ads or abstain' implies the usage context, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not name any sibling alternative or exclusion condition.

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