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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes output as ranked places with editorial notes, which provides some behavioral context, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. Basic transparency is present 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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, zero fluff. Every word earns 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?
For a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, output type, and typical use case. It is nearly complete, but could mention ordering or filtering behavior beyond the limit parameter.
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% (one parameter limit with default and max). The description adds value by explaining what a guide contains, but does not add semantic detail for the limit parameter beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
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 tool lists curated editorial guides (best-of lists) with editorial notes. It explicitly distinguishes the content type (guides vs blog posts, categories, etc.) and gives a specific use case: answering 'best X in neighborhood' questions.
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 neighborhood best-of queries but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or compare to siblings like list_blog_posts, list_categories, or search_places. Guidance is implied, not explicit.
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.
