Get full details for a specific place by its URL slug, including opening hours, a precomputed open_now boolean, amenity attributes (slugs), a delivery array of curated delivery-app deep-links (ifood, rappi, uber-eats — each { platform, url }), ratings, address, and neighborhood.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | URL slug of the place, e.g. "cafe-example". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the output's non-obvious fields (e.g., open_now boolean, delivery deep-links). No side effects are expected for a read operation, and the description is transparent about what is returned.
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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., list format), but it is concise and covers key points without waste.
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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides a fairly complete picture of the returned data. It lacks mention of error conditions or read-only nature, but these are implicit.
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 single parameter 'slug' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description only reiterates 'URL slug' without adding further semantics, such as format constraints or examples beyond the schema.
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 verb 'Get' and resource 'place' by URL slug, and details the returned fields (opening hours, open_now, attributes, delivery links, ratings, address, neighborhood). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search_places' or 'get_reviews'.
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 use when you need full details for a specific place, but does not explicitly state when to use over alternatives (e.g., when not to use search_places) or mention prerequisites like slug availability. Adequate but lacks explicit guidance.
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 mostly distinct with clear descriptions. Some overlap in actions that require user to click a link (create_booking, create_checkout, request_reservation, etc.), but each targets a different domain (booking, store, restaurant, event tickets, RSVP). Minor ambiguity possible but descriptions clarify.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., create_booking, get_availability, search_places). No deviations or mixed conventions.
28 tools is slightly high for a neighborhood directory, but each serves a specific function (search, booking, events, movies, offers, etc.). The scope justifies the count, though some tools like list_blog_posts and list_faqs might be considered niche.
The tool set covers search, place details, categories, menus, events, movies, offers, booking, and forms. Missing update/delete operations for places or user management, but these are likely out of scope for a read-only directory. Core queries and actions are well-supported.
