List upcoming bookable slots at a single venue, identified by its venue_slug (as returned by search_slots). Use to drill into one venue after a search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max slots to return (1-30, default 15). | |
| venue_slug | Yes | The venue_slug from a search_slots result. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the scope of 'upcoming bookable slots' but doesn't disclose additional behavioral details like pagination or return format. This is adequate but not extensive.
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 concise sentences: the first states the action and resource, the second provides usage context. No redundant or filler content.
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 full schema coverage and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what it does and when to use it. Sibling tools are already differentiated.
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%, so both parameters are fully documented. The description mentions venue_slug comes from search_slots, but the schema already states that, so the description adds no extra semantic value.
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 lists upcoming bookable slots at a single venue, identified by venue_slug. It explicitly references search_slots for the slug, distinguishing it from the sibling search_slots tool.
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 says 'Use to drill into one venue after a search,' which gives clear context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the guidance is 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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: search_slots for finding slots, get_venue for drilling into a specific venue, list_sports for an overview, and create_alert for notifications. There is no overlap or ambiguity among them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: create_alert, get_venue, list_sports, search_slots. The naming is uniform, predictable, and easy to navigate.
With 4 tools, the set is well-scoped for a sports booking aggregator. Each tool covers a distinct core function (search, venue details, sport overview, alerts) without unnecessary bloat or missing essentials.
The core workflow of searching slots, viewing venue details, and setting alerts is covered. Minor gaps exist, such as no built-in booking (relying on external links) and no way to manage or cancel alerts, but these are acceptable given the design.
