List solo service-provider profiles on this site — businesses without a fixed physical location (e.g. dog walkers, tutors, personal trainers). Returns name, profile URL, category, and any available metadata (age, height, etc.).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max profiles to return (default 50). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions output fields but lacks details on ordering, pagination, rate limits, or read-only nature. This leaves notable gaps.
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: first defines purpose, second enumerates return fields. No redundant information. Well-structured.
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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's function. Could mention pagination but not essential. Slightly above average completeness.
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% and the schema documents the 'limit' parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 applies.
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 specifies the tool returns solo service-provider profiles without a fixed location, with examples (dog walkers, tutors). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_places.
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 usage for finding solo providers without fixed location, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools.
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.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with detailed descriptions that prevent ambiguity. Overlaps like create_booking vs request_reservation are clarified by domain (appointments vs restaurant) and mechanics.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_booking, list_events, search_places). The same conjugation style (snake_case) is used throughout, with no mixing of conventions.
At 28 tools, the set is slightly larger than the typical well-scoped range (3-15), but each tool corresponds to a distinct feature of the neighborhood directory, making the count reasonable for the breadth of functionality.
The tool surface covers all major user-facing actions: searching, browsing, booking, purchasing, and retrieving information. No obvious gaps exist for the stated purpose of a neighborhood directory.
