get_availabilityLive ticket availability for a concert, per session: the stock_id, category_id and price_id values that hold_tickets needs, with prices in euro cents and the maximum quantity per line.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No | Language for titles, labels and the returned URLs. Defaults to fr. | |
| event_id | Yes | The event_id from list_events. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the operation is safe, and the description adds useful behavioral context: results are live, prices are in euro cents, and there is a maximum quantity per line. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.
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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then specifies the key output details. Every phrase earns its place; no filler or redundant repetition of schema information.
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?
For a read-only lookup tool with a simple two-parameter schema and an output schema available, the description provides all essential context: what it returns, in what units, and how the result connects to hold_tickets. Nothing critical is missing for invoking it 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 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents event_id and locale. The description does not add much parameter-level meaning, though 'per session' helps clarify the granularity of the returned data.
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 function: retrieving live ticket availability for a concert per session, and specifies the exact values returned (stock_id, category_id, price_id) that hold_tickets needs. It also adds important detail about prices being in euro cents and the maximum quantity per line. This distinguishes it from sibling getters like get_event or get_venue_info.
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 implies when to use this tool by explaining that it provides the values hold_tickets needs, making the downstream use case clear. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer the correct placement in a booking flow.
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.
Most tools target distinct steps in the booking lifecycle, but get_booking_status and wait_for_payment serve nearly the same purpose, and get_event/list_events/get_availability all surface availability. Descriptions are strong enough to prevent frequent misselection.
All tools use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_*, hold_tickets, redeem_*, release_booking, set_contact, wait_for_payment). There are no style or naming convention breaks.
Twelve tools map cleanly to the ticket-buying workflow: discovery, venue info, availability, hold, contact, payment, redemption, release, status, and recovery. Each tool earns its place without redundant bulk.
The lifecycle is well covered: hold, contact, payment, redemption, release, and post-sale recovery are all present. The only notable gap is lack of any cancellation/refund path for paid bookings, though this may be intentional venue policy.