Get the food menu for a specific restaurant on this site. Returns menus with their sections, dishes, descriptions, prices, and dietary labels (vegan, gluten-free, etc). Use search_places or list_categories first to find the restaurant's place_slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| place_slug | Yes | The slug of the restaurant, e.g. "bar-do-ze" (from search_places or a place URL). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool returns menus with specific details, implying a read-only operation, but lacks explicit mention of side effects, authentication needs, or error conditions.
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?
Three concise sentences each add value: purpose, return content, and prerequisite. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core action.
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 retrieval tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, return content, and prerequisite. It lacks details on output structure or error handling but is adequate given complexity.
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 parameter description already includes the example and source. The tool description does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score 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 states that the tool gets the food menu for a specific restaurant, listing specific return contents. It distinguishes from siblings like search_places and list_categories.
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 instructs to use search_places or list_categories first to obtain the place_slug, providing clear context and prerequisites. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the guidance is strong.
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.
