request_full_serviceStart a PAID full-service, fully-guided expedition with Iconic Expeditions guides. This $500 is a deposit; the final custom price is quoted by an expert afterward based on the itinerary. Returns a Stripe checkout URL. Requires a bearer token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | ||
| itinerary_id | Yes | ||
| contact_email | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that it returns a Stripe checkout URL and requires a bearer token, which are key behavioral traits. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not mention side effects (e.g., does it reserve guides or inventory?), auth failure behavior, or whether the action is reversible, leaving gaps for an agent.
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?
At 3 sentences, the description is compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value, though a small amount of redundancy exists ('paid' in both title and first sentence).
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?
Given the complexity (paid service, deposit flow, Stripe integration) and no output schema, the description should cover return format details (e.g., is the URL in a response field?). It mentions the output but not its structure. The three parameters are partially explained. Overall adequate but not thorough.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It names 'itinerary_id' implicitly (via 'expedition'), and the mention of 'Stripe checkout URL' hints at what contact_email might be for payment receipt. However, it does not explicitly define 'notes' or 'contact_email', missing a chance to fully clarify.
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 verb 'Start', the specific resource 'PAID full-service, fully-guided expedition', and includes critical details like the deposit amount ($500) and the final pricing model. It is well differentiated from sibling tools like 'price_itinerary' or 'request_bookings'.
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 this is used after creating an itinerary (since it requires an itinerary_id), but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like 'price_itinerary' or 'request_bookings'. No usage constraints or prerequisites are noted beyond the bearer token requirement.
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.