Flippa MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: it explains the logic (e.g., using property_type and revenue range 0.5x-2x for matching when listing_id is provided, and the override behavior). However, it does not disclose potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by logical flow on usage, a clear Args/Returns/Examples structure, and no redundant information. Every sentence earns its place by adding clarity or guidance.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, but with rich schema descriptions and annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage logic, parameters, returns, and examples. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on return structure (e.g., format of 'list of comparable listings'), though the examples partially compensate.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it briefly mentions the revenue range logic for listing_id and the override behavior for property_type, but does not provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what is in the schema and examples section.

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 tool's purpose: 'Find comparable listings on Flippa for valuation comparison.' It specifies the verb ('find') and resource ('comparable listings'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on valuation comparison rather than analysis, retrieval, overview, or general search.

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?

The description provides clear context on when to use the tool: for valuation comparison, with options to search by listing_id or property_type. It mentions that property_type overrides the target listing's type if both are provided, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling alternatives like flippa_search_listings or flippa_analyze_listing.

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