get_city_calendarHot dates (events and holidays that push hotel prices up) and value windows (historically cheaper stretches) for a city in a date range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | Range end, YYYY-MM-DD (default: one year from today) | |
| city | Yes | City name, e.g. 'Lisbon' | |
| from | No | Range start, YYYY-MM-DD (default: today) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral context. It only describes what the tool returns (hot dates and value windows) but omits details like data source, update frequency, or if it is read-only, leaving significant gaps.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads key terms ('Hot dates' and 'value windows') with zero waste, earning its place.
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?
Without an output schema, the description does not detail the return format or structure of hot dates and value windows, which is a gap for a moderately complex tool with three parameters.
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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions (city, from, to). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond stating the tool's purpose, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline for high-coverage schemas.
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 provides 'hot dates' and 'value windows' for a city in a date range, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_booking_advice or get_last_minute_deals.
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 usage for retrieving price calendar data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
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 addresses a distinct aspect: booking advice, calendar events, last-minute deals, and city listing. No functional overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_*, list_*), making them predictable.
With 4 tools, the server is compact yet covers the core functionalities of a hotel booking-timing service.
The tool set provides all necessary operations for the declared domain: advice, calendar, deals, and city discovery. No obvious gaps.