eventos_proximosEventos publicados y aptos para familia en Cabo Rojo y el oeste de Puerto Rico en los próximos días, con lugar, hora y precio cuando existe.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dias | No | Ventana en días hacia adelante (1-60, default 14) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the nature of the data (published, family-friendly, upcoming) and the included fields (place, time, price), but does not explicitly state it is a read-only list or mention any limitations such as pagination or filtering. This is moderate behavioral insight.
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, efficient sentence that packs essential details—geographic scope, family-friendly filter, time window, and included fields—without any redundant words. It is well-suited for quick agent understanding.
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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the content of the result (place, time, price). It could explicitly state that it returns a list, but the intent is clear and the parameter is fully described in the schema.
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 schema covers 100% of the parameter 'dias' with a clear description of its range and default. The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 specifies the tool's subject—published and family-friendly upcoming events in Cabo Rojo and western Puerto Rico—and includes place, time, and price details. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like business search or recall checks, but lacks an explicit verb such as 'lists' or 'retrieves.'
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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to find upcoming family-friendly events in a specific geographic region. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but none of the sibling tools overlap with events, so the context is sufficient.
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 targets a distinct resource or workflow: local businesses, recalls, provider directories, public records, events, demand, verification stats, and citations. The only mild concern is that citar, dato_citable, and buscar_negocio could be briefly confused by name alone, but their descriptions clearly separate them.
All names are lowercase snake_case and mostly Spanish, so they feel cohesive. However, conventions vary: buscar_negocio and chequear_recall are verb-noun, directorio_plan_medico and eventos_proximos are noun-noun or noun-adjective, while lo_que_no_se is a complete phrase. This is readable but not a uniform verb_noun pattern.
Ten tools is well within the ideal range, and each one addresses a distinct part of the server's mission: business search, verification, citations, health provider coverage, recalls, events, and demand/unknown signals. Nothing feels redundant or unnecessary.
The tool surface covers the key workflows well: search, cite, verify, check health access, find events, check leads, and surface unmet demand. Minor gaps exist — for example, business details are limited to the west PR focus and certain plans only — but those are clearly scoped limitations rather than missing core functions.