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 for behavioral disclosure. It describes return fields comprehensively but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, mention authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. The description is adequate but lacks some context that would be useful for safe invocation.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the list of fields in the middle makes it somewhat dense; splitting into two sentences could improve readability. It is concise but not perfectly structured.
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 lack of an output schema, the description fairly thoroughly covers the return values (opening hours, open_now, attributes, delivery array, ratings, address, neighborhood). It does not mention error cases (e.g., invalid slug) but is otherwise complete for a simple retrieval tool.
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 a single required parameter 'slug', which has a clear schema description. The tool description adds minimal extra value beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'by its URL slug' reinforcing the parameter). 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 the action ('Get full details for a specific place'), identifies the input method ('by its URL slug'), and lists the specific data returned (opening hours, open_now, attributes, delivery, ratings, address, neighborhood). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_places or get_reviews.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies you need a slug, it doesn't compare with search_places (which likely finds places) or other detail tools like get_restaurant_menus. An agent would benefit from knowing when to use this vs other retrieval tools.
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 resource or action (e.g., bookings, events, places, menus, forms), with detailed descriptions that clearly differentiate even similar operations like create_booking vs. reserve_event_tickets. No two tools overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase and underscores (e.g., create_booking, get_availability, list_events). Verbs are semantically appropriate (create, get, list, search, submit) and predictable.
28 tools is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but the breadth of the neighborhood directory domain justifies each tool. The count feels dense but not excessive, with no redundant tools.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of a neighborhood directory: place search, restaurant menus, events, movie showtimes, booking, reviews, blog, guides, offers, loyalty, forms, and profiles. Obvious gaps like review creation are absent but likely out of scope.
