List every city NABarFinder covers, each with its state, number of human-verified venues, city slug (for search_venues), and canonical nabarfinder.com city guide URL. Takes no input. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and 'Takes no input', which are key behavioral details. It does not mention potential side effects or limitations, but the read-only nature makes such omissions acceptable.
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, concise sentence that efficiently communicates the purpose, output content, and behavior (read-only, no input). It is well-structured with no redundancy.
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, parameterless list operation, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, output fields, and behavioral constraints (read-only), making it sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool.
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 no parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100% (nothing to cover). The baseline is 3, and the description adds no parameter-specific information because none exist.
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's function (list all cities NABarFinder covers) and specifies the output fields (state, number of human-verified venues, city slug, canonical URL). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on cities rather than individual venues or searches.
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 when to use it (when a full list of cities is needed) and notes it takes no input, but it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tools or state an alternative for filtering. The implied usage is clear enough.
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 query type: find_drink searches by drink, search_venues searches by venue attributes, get_venue fetches venue details, get_menu fetches a venue's menu, and list_cities enumerates supported cities. The overlap between find_drink and search_venues is resolved by their clear, different filtering purposes.
All tool names follow a clear verb_noun pattern: find_drink, get_menu, get_venue, list_cities, search_venues. The verbs are consistent in style and each noun clearly indicates the resource being acted on.
Five tools is an appropriately scoped surface for a read-only venue and drink directory. Each tool covers a distinct need without redundancy, and the count is neither thin nor excessive.
The read-only domain is well covered: list cities, search venues, fetch full venue details, fetch a venue's menu, and find venues by specific drink. There are no obvious dead ends for the stated directory purpose.
