get_speed_statsCrowd-sourced in-flight WiFi speed reports: average download/upload Mbps, latency, and a per-provider breakdown. Use for "is the WiFi fast enough" questions. Pass a flight_number or an airline_code, not both.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| airline_code | No | IATA airline code, e.g. "UA" | |
| flight_number | No | IATA flight number, e.g. "UA123" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that data is crowd-sourced, which implies variability and non-official status. This is useful context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't discuss rate limits or data freshness.
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, front-loaded with the core function and output, then usage guidance and a constraint. Every sentence earns its place 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?
Even without an output schema, the description lists the return contents (download/upload Mbps, latency, per-provider breakdown) and clarifies the use case and input constraints. It is complete for a simple two-parameter 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?
Schema already documents both parameters with examples (100% coverage). The description adds the exclusive OR constraint ('not both'), which is critical and not in the schema. This adds meaningful value beyond the structured fields.
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 returns crowd-sourced in-flight WiFi speed reports with specific metrics (download/upload Mbps, latency, per-provider breakdown). It uses a specific verb 'get' and resource 'speed stats', and the content distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_wifi_facts or get_airline_wifi.
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?
It explicitly says 'Use for "is the WiFi fast enough" questions' and gives a parameter constraint ('Pass a flight_number or an airline_code, not both'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, though the sibling context implies it.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but get_flight_wifi and get_wifi_facts both answer flight-level WiFi questions, creating overlap. The descriptions help by directing users to get_wifi_facts as the preferred choice, yet the redundancy remains. Other tools like get_airline_wifi vs list_airlines are differentiated by scope, but the core flight lookup is duplicated.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: get_airline_wifi, get_flight_wifi, get_rollouts, get_speed_stats, get_tail_info, get_wifi_facts, list_airlines, search_wifi. The verbs (get, list, search) are appropriate and uniform. No mixed naming conventions or camelCase deviations are present.
The 8 tools are well-scoped for a WiFi information server, covering airline, flight, aircraft, speed, rollout, and search capabilities without overwhelming redundancy. Each tool serves a distinct need (except the noted overlap), and the count sits comfortably in the ideal range.
The tool set comprehensively covers the in-flight WiFi domain: airline-wide info, flight-specific predictions, tail history, speed statistics, rollout progress, and free-text search. No critical operations are missing, and the inclusion of both airline and flight level lookups with fallback logic makes the surface complete for read-only information retrieval.