event_sponsor_textSponsors of one event that are NOT themselves on ClusterHack (a name,
description, website and logo entered as free text, with the sponsorship
tier each one belongs to) — the off-platform counterpart to
event_sponsors. Public read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_slug | Yes | Slug of the event. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the endpoint is 'Public read' (no auth), and the data entries are free-text records (name, description, website, logo) with a sponsorship tier. It does not mention pagination or errors, but these are not critical for a simple read list.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and packs inclusion criteria, field definitions, sibling contrast, and access level without redundancy. Every clause provides needed 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 one-parameter, read-only list tool, the description gives everything needed to call it correctly: the schema covers the parameter, the output contents are enumerated, and the relationship to `event_sponsors` removes ambiguity. No output schema exists, but the data shape is sufficiently specified.
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 sole parameter `event_slug` is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage. The tool description reinforces that the tool targets 'one event' but adds no formatting or edge-case semantics beyond the schema, so the high-coverage baseline of 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 names a specific action and resource: listing the sponsors of one event. It also states the key discriminator, sponsors that are NOT on ClusterHack, and identifies the off-platform counterpart to `event_sponsors`, making the distinction from the sibling tool explicit.
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?
It gives clear context for when to use it (for sponsors not on ClusterHack) and names `event_sponsors` as the counterpart alternative. It does not explicitly say 'use `event_sponsors` for on-platform sponsors', but the counterpart framing leaves that relationship unambiguous.
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.
Tools are grouped by domain prefix and mostly target a distinct resource, but there are several near-overlapping read clusters — notably whoami/event_roles/event_my_membership (all answer 'what roles at event X'), submission_get/submission_page, team_open_roles/team_seeking_members, and company_employees/company_roster. The descriptions do an exceptional job of steering ('use this, not that'), so misselection is unlikely, but the sheer number of such pairs keeps this from a 5.
The dominant domain_prefix + noun/verb pattern (event_, team_, submission_, company_, article_) is consistent and readable. Deviations: list_api_endpoints/list_capabilities invert the word order (verb-first) versus event_list/submission_list elsewhere, search and whoami carry no domain prefix, account_how_to_sign_in is a phrase, and read verbs vary between get/list/browse/page/preview.
60 tools is far beyond the 25+ threshold, and the surface is purely read-only — the breadth comes from extremely granular views (22 event_* tools) and many singleton catalogs (event_cities, event_types, event_background_images, article_languages, tag_list, tech_list, company_vacancies) plus six meta/informational tools. The domain is genuinely broad and every tool is distinct, so it reads as heavy rather than chaotic, but the count is still excessive.
The set contains zero write tools — no create, update, or delete anywhere — yet the descriptions repeatedly direct callers to absent tools: event_create, event_set_branding, event_add_sponsor, event_submit_registration_answers, invite_join, team_post, team_assign_role, team_remove_member, company_fire_employee, account_export_data, and more. An agent following the descriptions will call nonexistent tools and fail. The read/browse coverage is very thorough, but the complete absence of the write side (which the descriptions themselves treat as existing) is a significant gap.