list_eventsAll upcoming concerts with date, line-up, genres and a price/availability summary. Amounts are euro cents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No | Language for titles, labels and the returned URLs. Defaults to fr. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes a safe read operation, and the description adds useful context by enumerating exactly what is returned (date, line-up, genres, price/availability summary) and the currency unit (euro cents). It does not disclose ordering, pagination, or result limits, but that gap is minor for a simple read-only list tool with an output schema.
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 zero filler: the first front-loads the core purpose and returned fields, and the second isolates the critical currency detail (euro cents). Every sentence earns its place, and the description is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 simple read-only listing tool, the combination is quite complete: annotations cover safety, the input schema fully documents the only parameter, the output schema covers return structure, and the description supplies the non-obvious detail (currency unit). The only minor gaps are ordering/pagination, which are not critical given the output schema exists.
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%: the locale parameter is fully documented with its enum values, purpose, and default in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable since the baseline for high coverage is 3 and the schema carries the burden.
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 resource (upcoming concerts) and the returned fields (date, line-up, genres, price/availability summary), effectively conveying a list/browse operation. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like get_event and get_availability, which target specific events or availability, though it never names an alternative or an explicit scope boundary.
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?
Usage context is implied: listing all upcoming concerts with summaries is the natural discovery/browse entry point, while siblings like get_event, get_availability, and hold_tickets serve detail and transaction purposes. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, so the agent must infer the routing from the sibling names.
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.