request_verificationStart a PAID itinerary verification. Our travel experts manually confirm availability, seasonality, routing and current lodge rates, then return a feasibility report and final price. Returns a Stripe checkout URL. Requires a bearer token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | Anything the experts should know (dates, group size, budget) | |
| itinerary_id | Yes | ||
| contact_email | No | Where to send the report + receipt |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is paid, returns a feasibility report and Stripe URL, and requires authentication. However, it does not explain whether the operation is synchronous or async, what happens if verification fails, or side effects like record creation. Moderately transparent but lacks depth.
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?
Four sentences, all front-loaded: first sentence states the action and cost. Every sentence adds essential information (manual expert verification, report/price, Stripe URL, auth requirement). No redundant or vague wording. Excellent conciseness.
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 operation, external payment integration, no output schema or annotations), the description covers the main flow but leaves gaps: no return structure (just 'Stripe checkout URL'), no error handling, no mention of idempotency or what happens after payment. Adequate but not fully complete for a tool with no supplementary metadata.
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 67%, with notes and contact_email having clear descriptions. The description does not add extra meaning for any parameter beyond what the schema provides. For itinerary_id, which lacks a schema description, the tool description offers no additional context, relying solely on the UUID format. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('Start'), resource ('itinerary verification'), and outcome ('feasibility report and final price', 'Stripe checkout URL'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like price_itinerary (automated) and request_bookings (booking) by noting it is a PAID manual verification by experts.
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 manual expert verification but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., price_itinerary for automated pricing, request_bookings for booking). No exclusions or prerequisites are given beyond 'Requires a bearer token.'
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.