Get ticket types and prices for a specific event (Wix Events). Pass the event slug from list_events. Returns ticket names, prices, sale status, and how many are left.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_slug | Yes | Event slug from list_events. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Given no annotations, the description discloses the output contents (ticket names, prices, sale status, availability). Lacks mention of read-only nature or any side effects, but for a retrieval tool this is adequate.
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?
Two sentences: first conveys purpose and prerequisite, second summarizes output. No redundant language, information density is high.
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 one-parameter retrieval tool, the description covers purpose, source of parameter, and return fields. No output schema exists, so the description compensates well. Lacks error handling or limits, but not critical.
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 has 100% coverage with a description for event_slug. The description reinforces that the slug comes from list_events, adding context beyond the schema's minimal description.
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?
Specifically states 'Get ticket types and prices for a specific event', identifies the Wix Events domain, and distinguishes from sibling tools like reserve_event_tickets and rsvp_event by focusing on retrieval.
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?
Explicitly instructs to pass the event slug from list_events, implying a prerequisite sequence. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the return description implies pre-booking use.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct domain (e.g., booking, restaurant reservation, event RSVP, movie showtimes) with clear descriptions that prevent confusion. Overlapping verbs like 'create' are used for different resource types, and the descriptions explicitly distinguish their contexts.
All 28 tools follow a strict verb_noun pattern with underscores, e.g., create_booking, get_availability, list_events. No mixing of conventions or inconsistent verb styles.
28 tools is at the upper end of reasonable for a broad neighborhood directory server covering places, bookings, events, movies, store, forms, and more. While each tool serves a distinct purpose, the count feels slightly high for a single server.
The tool surface covers core discovery and booking initiation (search, detail, book, reserve), but lacks lifecycle operations like cancel, update, or list user's existing bookings. Several operations require external checkout or confirmation links, creating workflow gaps.