Sample Divar asking-price listings by category and transaction, filter sale, rent, and deposit independently, and report coverage.
Describe asking-price samples by category/transaction. Filter sale/rent/deposit independently and report coverage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| warnings | No | ||
| schema_version | No | 1.0 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that sale/rent/deposit filters are independent and that coverage is reported, which is useful context beyond annotations, but it does not discuss auth needs, rate limits, or sampling limitations.
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?
Two tightly written sentences with no filler. Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the filtering/coverage behavior follows immediately.
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 a required nested request object with many fields, 0% schema description coverage, and a large sibling set, the description is too thin to guide correct invocation. Output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, but input and usage context are largely missing.
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%, and the nested SearchRequest contains many fields with no schema-level explanation. The description only gestures at category/transaction and sale/rent/deposit filtering, leaving city, sort, limits, price bounds, constraints, and other parameters unexplained.
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 what the tool does: describe asking-price samples by category/transaction, with independent sale/rent/deposit filtering and coverage reporting. The resource and scope are clear, though the verb 'Describe' is somewhat vague and the description does not differentiate it from siblings such as dv_market_history or dv_count.
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?
Provides no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives among the many sibling tools. It only describes filtering behavior, leaving the agent to infer when this snapshot tool is preferable to dv_market_history, dv_count, or dv_assess_price.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.