get_eventGet the full detail for one pro-wrestling event by its unique id, including venue and card preview. Get the id from get_tv_schedule or list_live_events first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uniqueId | Yes | The event's unique id, as returned by get_tv_schedule or list_live_events. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) already declare safety and idempotency. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns full detail including venue and card preview. No contradictions.
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 clear, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. Every sentence contributes essential information.
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 get tool with one parameter, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and source of the id. It does not describe return format, but that is acceptable given the simplicity.
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% and the parameter description in the schema explains the unique id. The tool description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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?
The description clearly states the tool gets full detail for one event by unique id, specifying it includes venue and card preview. It distinguishes from siblings (get_tv_schedule, list_live_events) that return lists, by indicating it retrieves details for a single known entity.
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 explicitly advises obtaining the id from get_tv_schedule or list_live_events first, providing clear context. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but the prerequisite is well-stated.
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: event details, TV schedule, live events, news, podcasts, and videos. The descriptions clearly differentiate them, and any overlap (e.g., get_event vs list_live_events) is explicitly resolved by referencing earlier steps.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_ for single resources and list_ for collections. This makes the API predictable and easy for agents to select the correct tool.
Six tools is well-scoped for a content aggregation server covering news, media, and events. Each tool earns its place without excess or redundancy, fitting the typical recommended range.
The tool surface covers the full consumption workflow: browsing schedules, discovering events, retrieving event details, and accessing news, podcasts, and videos. There are no obvious dead ends for the read-only purpose of this server.