List curated editorial guides ("best of" lists) published by this site — ranked places with editorial notes. The best source for "best X in this neighborhood" questions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max guides to return (default 20, max 50). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions returned content (ranked places, editorial notes) but does not describe pagination, ordering, or behavior when no guides are found. Adequate but lacks depth.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no filler. Efficiently communicates the tool's value.
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 the tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), description adequately explains what it does and when to use it. Slight gap in explaining ordering or default behavior, but overall complete enough for effective selection.
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 covers the single parameter (limit) with description. The description adds no additional parameter info beyond schema, so 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?
Clearly states it lists curated editorial guides with ranked places and editorial notes. Distinguishes itself from other list tools by specifying 'curated editorial guides' and 'best X in this neighborhood' use case.
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?
Provides an explicit use case ('best X in this neighborhood' questions), which helps an agent decide when to use it. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context of sibling tools implies differentiation.
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 (bookings, store, events, restaurants, movies, etc.) with detailed descriptions that clearly differentiate their purposes. Overlap is minimal and handled by context, such as create_booking vs create_checkout vs request_reservation.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, using prefixes like get_, list_, create_, search_, etc. The naming is predictable and makes it easy to infer the action and resource.
28 tools is above the typical well-scoped range, but each tool covers a distinct feature of the neighborhood directory (places, events, movies, blog, forms, etc.). The count reflects the integration of multiple Wix apps, which is appropriate for a comprehensive directory.
The tool set covers most user-facing operations for a directory: search places, get details, book services, events, restaurant menus, etc. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no cancellation for bookings, no update operations), but these are likely out of scope for a public-facing server.
