List active promotions and deals available in this neighborhood directory. Returns discount label, promo code (if any), CTA link, validity window, and which business/place it belongs to. FLASH offers have a countdown deadline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | Filter by offer kind. FLASH = time-limited flash sale with countdown. Omit to return all active offers. | |
| limit | No | Max offers to return (default 20, max 60). |
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 notes that FLASH offers have a countdown deadline, which adds behavioral context. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or handles pagination. The return fields are described, but not the overall behavior.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized and structured for quick comprehension.
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, the description names the key fields returned (discount label, promo code, CTA link, validity window, business/place), which provides adequate context for an agent. It could mention the response format (e.g., array) or default ordering, but the current level is sufficient for a list tool with simple parameters.
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% with both parameters described in the schema. The description adds extra meaning for the 'kind' parameter by noting that FLASH offers have a countdown deadline, but the 'limit' parameter is not elaborated beyond the schema. The added value is marginal, so a baseline score of 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 the verb 'list', the resource 'active promotions and deals', and the scope 'in this neighborhood directory'. It lists specific return fields (discount label, promo code, CTA link, validity window, business). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_events or list_products.
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 retrieving active offers via the resource type and filter options, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_events) or provide exclusions. The context is clear but lacks direct guidelines.
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.