Plan a complete night out around a StungEvents event — outfit suggestion, dinner nearby, rideshare, hotel and music links. Takes an event slug or id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_id | Yes | Event slug or id |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. It also does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., a list of links, a structured plan). The behavioral impact is unclear.
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, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the core intent. It is concise, but the list of components could be better structured for readability.
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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to specify what the tool returns or how the plan is presented. The components are listed but not detailed, leaving the agent uncertain about the output format.
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 description adds no meaning beyond the schema: both state the parameter is an event slug or id. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool plans a night out around a StungEvents event, listing specific components (outfit, dinner, rideshare, hotel, music). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_event or search_events that provide simpler event info.
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 when a user wants a complete night plan, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_event or when not to use 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.
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.
