Register demand ('Demand It!') for an artist to play in a city. Use when a user wishes an artist would tour their city. Returns how many fans now want that artist there.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | Yes | City the user wants them in | |
| artist_name | Yes | Artist name, e.g. 'Taylor Swift' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions it registers demand and returns a fan count, but does not clarify idempotency (e.g., whether repeated calls increment or overwrite), required authentication, or any side effects like data persistence.
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?
Two sentences, no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the core action and usage context. Every sentence adds value.
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 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and return value adequately. Missing some behavioral details (idempotency, errors), but overall sufficient for a 2-param 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (city, artist_name) with descriptions. The description adds context about the return value (fan count) but does not add meaning to the parameters themselves. 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?
Clearly states the action ('Register demand') and resource ('for an artist to play in a city'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'demand_leaders' (likely for leaders) and 'search_events' (searching events rather than registering interest).
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?
Explicitly states when to use: 'Use when a user wishes an artist would tour their city.' This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly rule out alternative tools.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: demand_artist registers demand, demand_leaders shows leaderboard, get_event fetches details, list_news provides news, plan_my_night plans outings, search_events searches events. No overlap.
All tool names follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., demand_artist, search_events), with minor variation like plan_my_night still adhering to the pattern. Consistent and predictable.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose—enough to cover key functionalities without overwhelming or being too sparse.
Covers core event discovery, demand, details, news, and planning. Missing direct listing of venues or artists, but the set is functional for typical queries.
