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 provided, the description carries full burden. It explicitly lists the returned data fields (opening hours, open_now, attributes, delivery links, ratings, address, neighborhood), making the tool's behavior clear as a read operation. It does not note permissions or rate limits, but the 'get' name implies safety.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the core action ('Get full details...'), and efficiently enumerates return fields. While compact, it packs all necessary information without wasted words.
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 no output schema and low complexity (one parameter, no nesting), the description sufficiently covers return values. It lists key fields but omits error conditions or expected size. Still, it is fairly complete for the tool's simple nature.
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 description coverage is 100% (slug parameter described). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions 'by its URL slug' but does not elaborate on format or constraints beyond the schema's example. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'Get full details for a specific place by its URL slug', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_places' (search) and 'list_categories' (list) by emphasizing the use of a URL slug for a single place.
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 when you have a specific place's URL slug, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_places' or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions are provided.
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.
All 28 tools have clearly distinct purposes. Overlaps like create_booking vs request_reservation are well-delineated by descriptions: one for appointments with checkout URL, the other for table requests via email confirmation. Similarly, reserve_event_tickets vs rsvp_event, and get_restaurant_menus vs search_dishes are complementary.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_booking, get_availability, list_events, search_places). Verbs indicate action type (get/list for retrieval, create/reserve for creation), and nouns are specific entities. No mixing of conventions.
28 tools is above the typical 3-15 range but appropriate for the broad scope of a neighborhood directory with multiple Wix integrations (Bookings, Events, Stores, Reviews, etc.). Each tool covers a distinct feature, and no tool feels redundant.
The tool surface covers the main user workflows: searching places, viewing details and menus, checking availability, making bookings/reservations, and managing event tickets. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update/cancel for bookings, no booking status check), but these are acceptable as the server focuses on initiating actions.