One published event's public details: dates, venue, city, application deadline, required documents, and the apply link. Use the slug from list_open_events or from a venumark.com/event/ URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Event slug from list_open_events or the event URL |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description implies read-only behavior by referring to 'public details' of a published event. No contradictory or missing behavioral info; it appropriately conveys the tool's scope.
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 with no wasted words. The purpose is stated clearly upfront, and the usage guidance follows naturally.
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 read-only tool with one parameter, the description covers the output details and input source completely. No output schema exists, but the description lists return fields sufficiently.
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 for the single parameter is 100%, and the description adds value by explaining where to get the slug, making it more actionable than the schema alone.
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 explicitly states what the tool does: retrieving public details of a published event including dates, venue, city, deadline, documents, and apply link. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool list_open_events by focusing on a single event's details.
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 provides clear guidance on where to obtain the required slug parameter (from list_open_events or event URL). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool, the context is well-defined.
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: vendor search, scorecard retrieval, checking improvement, event listing, checklist retrieval, platform info, signup link, and vendor decision. Aliases (fetch/search) are explicitly described as shortcuts, not overlapping tools.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_scorecard, list_open_events). The aliases 'fetch' and 'search' break this pattern but are clearly documented as alternatives for specific connectors, not primary tool names.
12 tools is well-scoped for the server's purpose: covering vendor search, scorecard, decision, events, checklists, and platform setup. Each tool serves a necessary function without bloat.
The tool set covers core workflows: vendor discovery, compliance checking, checklist guidance, and event information. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for submitting vendor applications, but that is handled via web app links).
