get_pricingList the paid concierge service tiers and their prices: itinerary verification, verification + full booking, and full guided service. Read-only and public — use this to quote a traveller before they buy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is 'read-only and public', which conveys it has no side effects and requires no authentication. This is good transparency for a simple list operation, though it lacks details like response format or potential error cases.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb 'List' and immediately defines the scope. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is optimal.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and that it's safe to call. It could optionally detail the exact return structure, but the mention of 'tiers and their prices' is sufficient for an AI agent to understand the output.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter information.
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 lists paid concierge service tiers and their prices, with specific examples of the three tiers. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like price_itinerary by specifying it covers service tiers rather than pricing a specific itinerary.
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 usage context: 'use this to quote a traveller before they buy.' It implies this is the appropriate tool for pre-purchase pricing. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools (e.g., price_itinerary for post-selection pricing).
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.
Every tool targets a distinct operation or resource: create, read, update, delete for itineraries; add/delete for activities and days; content/destination retrieval; pricing and booking services. The two aliases are explicitly marked as backward-compatible, so agents can still distinguish them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., create_itinerary, delete_activity, get_itinerary_dossier). Even the aliases (get_wp_content, search_wp_content) adhere to the same convention, ensuring predictability.
23 tools is on the higher side but justified by the domain's complexity: itinerary CRUD, day/activity management, content search, destination lookup, pricing, booking services, and dossier handling. Each tool serves a clear purpose, though minor consolidation could be possible.
Covers the full lifecycle for itineraries and most related entities. Missing operations like updating or deleting a day, or updating an activity, are minor gaps that agents can work around by recreating or using get_itinerary. The planning dossier and booking request tools add depth.