Set or replace the user's own spending target for a trip. 'month' means per month of the trip; 'journey' means the whole trip. Replaces any existing target.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | Yes | ||
| period | No | Defaults to 'month'. | |
| currency | Yes | ISO 4217 code, e.g. USD, EUR, THB | |
| journey_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds behavioral detail beyond annotations: 'Replaces any existing target.' Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which align with replacement behavior. It also clarifies the scope ('user's own') and period semantics, enriching the agent's understanding of side effects.
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 sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the period explanation is essential and efficiently worded. Every sentence contributes to correct usage.
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?
Adequate for a simple setter: covers scope (own trip), period semantics, and replacement behavior. It does not mention response format or error handling, but given no output schema and the idempotent annotation, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 50%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'period' parameter ('month' vs 'journey') and gives meaning to 'amount' as a spending target. However, it does not detail amount units or clarify journey_id format beyond its type. It partially complements the schema but not fully for all parameters.
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 action: 'Set or replace the user's own spending target for a trip.' Clear verb (set/replace), resource (spending target), and scope (user's own, for a trip). Distinguishes from the read-only sibling get_budget by its explicit write semantics.
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?
Implicitly guides using this for setting or replacing a budget, with no direct setter alternative among siblings. It clarifies the period parameter meaning (per month vs whole trip) and the scope ('user's own'), giving clear context. It does not explicitly name get_budget as the read counterpart, but that is not critical since there is no competing setter.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action (e.g., create_flight vs create_activity vs create_stay), and descriptions clarify overlaps like stay vs accommodation. The only potential confusion (create_activity covers travel legs) is explicitly explained, so misselection is unlikely.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using standard verbs: create, delete, get, list, search, set, update, add, remove, leave. Nouns are consistently singular and descriptive (passport, journey, stay, flight, accommodation). No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
With 36 tools, the count is higher than typical, but the server covers a wide domain: journeys, stays, activities, flights, accommodations, visas, documents, preferences, and sharing. Each entity has CRUD operations plus search and status, so the count is justified, though bordering on heavy.
The tool surface is remarkably complete: full CRUD for every entity (journeys, stays, activities, flights, accommodations, visas), user profile access (get_me), search utilities, sharing controls (join links, member management), and preferences. No obvious dead ends or missing lifecycle steps; even edge cases like deleting bookings before stays are handled.