Get showtimes for a specific movie at cinemas in this neighborhood, for a given date. Returns each cinema with session times, format (e.g. "Laser", "3D"), and language (Dublado/Legendado). Requires movies_enabled on this site.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Date in YYYY-MM-DD format. Defaults to today (BRT). | |
| movie_slug | Yes | Movie slug from list_movies (e.g. "o-corvo-1016084"). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return structure (cinema, session times, format, language) and a prerequisite, but lacks details on rate limits, data freshness, or handling of cases with no showtimes. Adequate but not thorough.
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, well-structured sentence with a separate prerequisite note. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no redundant information, earning its place.
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?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains the return structure (cinema, session times, format, language) and includes the prerequisite. For a retrieval tool, this is sufficiently complete, though more detail on error handling could improve it.
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 description adds context beyond the schema: it mentions that movie_slug comes from list_movies and date defaults to today (BRT). This helps an agent understand parameter origins and defaults.
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 showtimes for a specific movie at cinemas in this neighborhood, for a given date', specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_movies (which lists movies) and get_event_tickets (events).
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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires movies_enabled on this site') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context of siblings provides implicit guidance, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative naming is present.
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.