Get the DJ/artist schedule for a festival or party event. Returns set times, stages, and artists. Use this to answer questions like 'What time does ANOTR play?' or 'What's happening at AYA on New Year's Eve?'
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stage | No | Filter by stage name | |
| artist | No | Search for specific artist in the schedule | |
| event_id | No | UUID of the event to get schedule for | |
| event_name | No | Name of the event to search for (if event_id not known) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool returns, but does not mention any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, performance expectations, or error handling (e.g., if event not found). For a read operation, basic transparency is lacking.
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 two sentences long, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second providing example usage. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no filler, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.
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 the absence of output schema and annotations, the description covers the basic return types (set times, stages, artists) and parameter filters. However, it does not clarify that all parameters are optional, how event identification works (event_id vs event_name), or the structure of the response. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.
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?
All four parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description text adds minimal value beyond the schema; it does not clarify the trade-off between 'event_id' and 'event_name' or provide additional usage context. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already covers parameter details.
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's purpose: 'Get the DJ/artist schedule for a festival or party event. Returns set times, stages, and artists.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('schedule'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'get_event_details' and 'search_events' by focusing on schedule retrieval. Including example questions further clarifies the intended use.
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 includes example questions ('What time does ANOTR play?', 'What's happening at AYA on New Year's Eve?'), which imply when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings, leaving some ambiguity for edge cases.
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.
Most tools target distinct resources and actions, such as get_artist vs get_artist_events and get_event_schedule vs get_now_playing. A few pairs like list_artists/search_artists and get_event_weeks/search_event_weeks could be confused, but their descriptions clarify browse vs search.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with get, list, and search. Minor inconsistency exists because get_ is used for both singular retrieval (get_artist) and collection listing (get_cities, get_event_weeks), while list_ only appears in list_artists. Overall predictable and readable.
16 tools is slightly above the typical 15-tool threshold but well-justified by the broad domain covering artists, events, venues, cities, event weeks, and organizers. Each tool serves a distinct purpose and none feel redundant.
The surface is comprehensive for a read-only events data API, covering artist browsing/search/details, event search/details/schedule/live, venue listing, city stats, event week management, and organizer search. Minor gaps include absent get_venue_details and get_organizer, but these can be derived from event details.