whats_onAgenda de actividades y cine en Alicante para una fecha o búsqueda concreta: eventos publicados y sesiones de cine con hora y sala.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Fecha YYYY-MM-DD en Europe/Madrid. | |
| limit | No | Resultados (máx. 10). | |
| query | No | Evento, película o palabra clave. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by specifying that results include 'eventos publicados' and cinema sessions with time and room, but it does not explain default behavior, such as what happens when no date is supplied, or pagination/result-shape details.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Agenda de actividades y cine en Alicante') and then gives the concrete scope and result contents. There is no redundant or filler wording.
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 relatively simple, read-only tool with 100% schema coverage and strong annotations, the description is mostly complete. The only meaningful gap is the lack of explicit default behavior when no date is provided, which an agent might need to know when calling this 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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented. The description adds slight semantic value by tying 'fecha' and 'búsqueda' to the date and query parameters, but it does not clarify interactions between parameters, defaults, or how 'limit' behaves beyond the schema definition.
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 identifies the tool as an agenda/activity finder for Alicante, covering both published events and cinema sessions with time and room. It is specific about the resource (activities and cinema in Alicante) and the two search modes (date or query), though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like search_alicante.
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 the tool should be used when looking for activities or cinema in Alicante by a specific date or keyword, but it does not state when not to use it or name an alternative. Sibling tools like search_alicante, find_food, or find_place suggest alternatives exist, but no routing guidance is provided.
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.
Several tools overlap in purpose: find_transit_stop and resolve_entity both resolve stops, while get_current_state, next_departures, favorite_stop, parking_availability, and beach_conditions all provide state/arrival information in different forms. The detailed descriptions help, but an agent could easily select the wrong tool when asked for simple arrival or status information.
All names use snake_case and are readable, but the pattern is mixed: some are verb-led (find_place, get_current_state, resolve_entity), some are noun phrases (beach_conditions, fuel_prices, flight_status), and others are quirky (whats_on, catch_vehicle_decision). This is not chaotic, but it lacks a strong consistent convention.
With 16 tools, the server is just above the ideal 3-15 range, but the broad Alicante information domain justifies the count. Each tool covers a distinct vertical or query path, and the set feels reasonably scoped rather than bloated.
The tool surface covers the main Alicante information domains well: transit, beaches, parking, food, places, flights, fuel, weather, and events, plus discovery/resolution helpers. There are minor gaps such as no direct traffic or bike-sharing tool, but agents can work around them via find_place or search_alicante.